REASONABLY AVAILABLE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY (RACT) 

ANALYSIS FOR RULE 4570 

(CONFINED ANIMAL FACILITIES) 

October 21, 2010 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Rule 4570 RACT Analysis October 21, 2010 

This page intentionally blank.

2
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Rule 4570 RACT Analysis October 21, 2010 

3 

RACT ANALYSIS 

For Rule 4570 (Confined Animal Facilities) 

Executive Summary 

The San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District’s (District) Rule 4570 (Confined 

Animal Facilities) is the most comprehensive and stringent regulation for reducing air 

contaminants from confined animal facilities (CAF) in the nation. Rule 4570 establishes 

a comprehensive set of regulatory mitigation measures designed to reduce emissions 

from the various areas of CAFs, such as the feed, the housing, and the manure 

management systems. The rule applies to commercial operations such as dairies, beef 

feedlot, poultry, swine, and other cattle facilities. Implementation of Rule 4570 requires 

significant commitment and investment from affected CAFs, resulting in emissions 

reductions that exceed the emission reduction commitments contained in the District’s 

Ozone Plan. 

In determining whether District Rule 4570 meets Reasonably Available Control 

Technology (RACT), the District performed an exhaustive evaluation of all potential 

control measures that could be implemented by the CAFs, and worked with EPA, 

stakeholders, and the scientific community to assure that the rule met, or even 

exceeded, RACT requirements. The analysis has also considered federal rules that 

cover large CAFs as well as rules in other California air districts, to ensure that Rule 

4570 requirements are as stringent, if not more stringent than those rules. Based on 

the information discussed in this report, it can be concluded that District Rule 4570 

satisfies RACT for the following reasons: 

• The District closely evaluated every control measure that was suggested by EPA, 

scientists, and stakeholders and has crafted a rule that is the most 

comprehensive and stringent regulation for reducing air contaminants from 

confined animal facilities (CAF) in the nation. 

• Rule 4570 requires mitigation measures for all large and medium Confined 

Animal Facilities and for all major sources of emissions from a facility. 

• The Rule achieves a significant level of control even if the least costly measures 

are selected by the source. 

• The RACT cost estimate to implement Rule 4570 requirements is $278,927,616 

annually, at a cost-effectiveness of $20,302 per ton of VOC reductions1

. This is 

a significant cost to bear to implement the rule. Mandating additional 

requirements would result in increased compliance costs which will have a 

 

1

 It should be noted that the RACT cost-effectiveness threshold of $20,302/ton differs from the rule cost-effectiveness 

threshold presented in the Staff Report, since the rule cost-effectiveness threshold only evaluates the additional costs 

associated with the revised rule requirements. 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Rule 4570 RACT Analysis October 21, 2010 

4 

detrimental impact to the health of the industry and go far beyond RACT and 

BARCT requirements. 

• There are no federal rules that apply to this category; therefore federal rules 

(CTG, NSPS. NESHAP) do not infer RACT for large CAFs. 

• No rule has been approved into the California SIP for this source category, so 

there is no precedent that outlines RACT. 

• A comparison of other California air district rules to District Rule 4570 shows that 

Rule 4570 is far more stringent in all categories than the rules in other air 

districts. 

• SB 700 required California air districts with certain non-attainment status to 

implement Best Available Retrofit Control Technology (BARCT), a level of control 

that is considered more stringent than RACT. District Rule 4570 was originally 

designed to satisfy SB 700 and as a consequence, implements BARCT for large 

CAFs within the Valley. The rule goes further by reducing the applicability of 

dairies and poultry to below the large CAF threshold. Also, the rule requires that 

certain CAFs perform additional mitigation measures at the largest sources of 

emissions, such as silage and feed, and requires more mandatory mitigation 

measures. 

• The mitigation measures outlined in Rule 4570 have been required as Best 

Available Control Technology (BACT) for new and modifying sources that trigger 

the BACT threshold. 

Therefore, Rule 4570 not only meets Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) 

requirements, it exceeds RACT requirements even though the majority of the CAFs 

subject to the rule are not subject to RACT. 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Rule 4570 RACT Analysis October 21, 2010 

5 

1. BACKGROUND – CONFINED ANIMAL FACILITIES IN THE SAN JOAQUIN 

VALLEY 

Confined Animal Facilities are used for the raising of animals including, but not limited 

to, cattle, calves, chickens, ducks, goats, horses, sheep, swine, rabbits, and turkeys, 

which are corralled, penned, or otherwise caused to remain in restricted areas for 

commercial agricultural purposes and fed by a means other than grazing. (CH&SC 

39011.5 (a)(1)). 

Menu Approach 

The design and operation of a CAF varies depending on animal type, regional climatic 

conditions, business practices, and preferences of the owners/operators resulting in no 

typical CAF. The proposed amendments to Rule 4570 continue to provide, when 

necessary, a menu of mitigation measures options for affected owners/operators. This 

acknowledges that not all facilities can implement the same mitigation measures due to 

a variety of factors, including infrastructure, conditional use permits, water board 

permits, soil types, production contracts, and other factors. 

With this rulemaking, the District has re-examined the current menu structure and has 

made significant changes to strengthen the rule requirements while balancing the need 

for operational flexibility. The District has worked closely with affected industries, 

scientific experts, and EPA to re-evaluate each menu and streamline measures within 

the same source, remove options that were determined to be ineffective, and clarify any 

mutually exclusive mitigation measures. Additionally, the District has strengthened the 

rule by mandating many mitigation measures which were previously optional, for the 

various CAFs. Any mitigation measures that remain optional due to infeasibility are 

further discussed in Appendix C of the Staff Report. Allowing for some optional 

measures rather than specifically mandating all requirements allows the flexibility for 

producers to select measures that will work best for their facility based on their own type 

of housing, manure management practices, and feed storage and management while 

minimizing their compliance costs and achieving the same emission reductions. 

1.1 VARIETY OF CAFS 

CAFs can vary significantly in size from one CAF to another (e.g., dairy to feedlots, 

poultry, etc.) and within the same category of CAFs (dairy to dairy). For example, a 

dairy can be as small as 10 acres to well over 100 acres, depending on the number and 

types of cows on the facility. The majority of the sources on a dairy or a cattle facility 

consist of large open areas and cannot be easily controlled, specifically by a single 

control device. Dairies cannot be compared to feedlot cattle nor can either be 

compared to poultry operations. Poultry operations, even within themselves have many 

different characteristics and practices. 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Rule 4570 RACT Analysis October 21, 2010 

6 

A description of the different types of housing and management systems are described 

in more detail in the Staff Report. 

1.2 EMISSION FACTORS 

1.2.1 BIOLOGICAL PROCESSES ARE COMPLEX 

Unlike other traditional stationary sources (many of which are combustion sources for 

which there is a very good understanding of emissions), agriculture sources are 

biological sources that consist of hundreds of different VOCs among other major 

pollutants. Perhaps the most important finding of all is that CAFs are extraordinarily 

complex sources of air emissions, varying not only season to season, but from CAF to 

CAF, and from place to place within a CAF. Emissions can vary substantially 

depending on weather, types of feed, and management styles along with many other 

factors. The same methodologies and standards used to establish emissions from 

traditional stationary sources cannot be used in determining the emissions from CAFs. 

Development of strategies to reduce environmental impacts of animal agriculture 

requires a better understanding of the mechanisms involved in the production, emission, 

and consumption of VOC, ammonia, odors, and greenhouse gases. In order to 

understand and ultimately reduce the negative impacts of these gaseous emissions, it is 

important to understand the circumstances under which they form. 

1.2.2 STATE OF THE SCIENCE 

When Rule 4570 was adopted in 2006, the research available at the time pointed to 

handling of solid and liquid animal wastes as being the largest source of VOC emissions 

at a dairy. District staff has made extensive efforts to understand and advance dairy 

emission-related research. Recent dairy emission research studies performed through 

the District, other interested agencies, and stakeholders have significantly increased 

knowledge of dairy emissions and have also shed some light on potential strategies to 

reduce these emissions. The studies have been performed on California dairies and 

reflect current dairy practices. In contrast to the earlier focus, current research indicates 

that silage piles and placing feed in the feed bunkers are a larger portion of the total 

dairy emissions than solid/liquid manure handling. The District has developed a new 

emission factor that utilizes the best available information. The latest available emission 

factor and supporting staff report is attached in Appendix H of the rule Staff Report. 

Important findings of the latest dairy research studies include: 

• Manure storage ponds and lagoons, which were previously thought to be a major 

source of VOC emissions at dairies, now appear to emit a comparatively small 

fraction of the overall dairy VOC emissions. 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Rule 4570 RACT Analysis October 21, 2010 

7 

• Feed at dairies is a significant source of VOC emissions. The exposed faces of 

silage piles that are used to store and preserve silage to be fed to the cattle and 

the total mixed ration placed in lanes for cattle consumption emit significant 

amounts of VOCs, particularly alcohols. 

• Emissions of alcohols (primarily ethanol) from feed, fresh manure, and directly 

from cows appear to comprise a significant fraction of dairy VOC emissions; 

• Manure deposited in open corrals appears to be an important source of VOC 

emissions on some dairies. 

• Emissions of volatile fatty acids (VFAs) are important but not as significant as 

previously estimated during the first revision of the dairy VOC emissions factor. 

• The practice of flushing freestall barns more frequently has the potential to 

reduce VOC emissions from cow housing areas. 

• Several of the compounds that have been identified as important components of 

dairy emissions, such as alcohols and volatile fatty acids, are highly soluble in 

aqueous solutions. This property may be important when developing potential 

mitigation strategies. 

• Land application of solid and liquid dairy manure contributes a relatively small 

amount to total VOC emissions at dairy. 

• Seasonal variation in emissions may be an important factor to consider when 

developing annual emission estimates. The seasonal variation in emission rates 

was observed to be more pronounced with ammonia emissions than VOC 

emissions. 

A similar study, although not quite as extensive for dairies was conducted for feedlot 

and other cattle animals. The study evaluated enteric (emissions directly from the 

cows), fresh waste, and feed emissions from the various types of cattle. Although the 

study was completed over a year ago, the results are currently going under peer review 

with the publishing journal’s peer review committee and were not made available to the 

District. In order to provide a better understanding of the emissions from these facilities, 

Dr. Frank Mitloehner, the principle researcher for the study submitted a letter (see 

Appendix I) sharing his overall findings. The results of the emissions data for these 

animals were all below the detection limits of the instrumentation used to measure the 

emissions. Since the diet of these types of animals is completely different from dairy 

cows, consisting of dry grains, it is expected that the emissions from these animals and 

the feed would be far lower or negligible in the case of dry feed. Although this letter 

cannot be used to develop an emission factor for these sources, it does provide useful 

information in tailoring mitigation measures to those facilities/sources that have a larger 

emissions profile, such as dairy and silage type feed. 

1.3 LACK OF AIR POLLUTION CONTROLS BEFORE RULE 4570 

Prior to January 1, 2004, agriculture sources were exempt from air permitting 

requirements in California. Therefore, prior to 2004 and in most cases prior to the 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Rule 4570 RACT Analysis October 21, 2010 

8 

passage of Rule 4570 in 2006, CAFs had practically no air pollution mitigation in place. 

CAFs were primarily managed and operated completely at the operator’s discretion 

without any thought to the effects of their operation to air emissions. 

The District’s efforts to develop Rule 4570 sparked new scientific research into 

understanding the emissions profile and potential strategies to reduce emissions. A 

great deal of research has already been conducted and research is ongoing and will 

continue far into the future. 

With the changes to the CH&SC and the resulting loss of exemption from permitting of 

agricultural sources of air pollution (CH&SC 39011.5 (b)), new or expanded CAFs are 

now required to undergo the Best Available Control Technology (BACT) process as a 

requirement under New Source Review (NSR). District Rule 2201 (New and Modified 

Stationary Source Review Rule) implements state and federal requirements under Title 

I, Part D and requires BACT for new sources or sources undergoing modification with 

emission increases that are above the de minimis value of two (2) pounds per day of 

VOC). BACT provisions for CAFs would apply to sources which are subject to District 

permitting requirements and that emit or may emit one or more affected pollutant with 

actual emissions which are 50% or more of any major source threshold. 

2 OVERVIEW OF RULE 4570 

The menu option of mitigation measures would be amended to require more measures, 

as well as make current measures more stringent. Some mitigation measures have 

been refined to provide clarity. Mitigation measures from all categories of CAFs, which 

were determined to be not as effective as other measures, not be technologically 

feasible or cost effective, were removed from rule language. Many of the menus have 

been revised and enhanced to specify mandated measures in high emission source 

categories such as feed, silage and housing while still maintaining flexibility to 

accommodate the variability of individual operators and facilities. 

The following is a summary of proposed amendments to each type of CAF mitigation 

measure menus: 

A. Dairies 

• The regulatory threshold has been changed from 1,000 milking cows to 500 milking 

cows. 

• Additional mitigation measures proposed, primarily for silage. The new mitigation 

measures would reduce VOC emissions through a combination of compaction 

standards, silage quality, and face and pile size management. 

• Current menu options would be made more stringent by making some options 

mandatory for feed and housing mitigation measures. 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Rule 4570 RACT Analysis October 21, 2010 

9 

• One requirement applied different frequency for medium dairies (greater than or 

equal to 500 milking cows), and large dairies (greater than or equal to 1,000 

milking cows) 

• The solid manure handling menu would apply only to large dairy CAFs, as is 

required in the current rule.

B. Beef Feedlots and Other Cattle Operations 

• Additional mitigation measures proposed, primarily for silage. The new mitigation 

measures would reduce VOC emissions through a combination of compaction 

standards, silage quality, and face and pile size management. 

• Current menu options would be made more stringent with multiple required 

measures as well as more frequent monitoring. 

C. Swine 

• Mitigation measures would be adjusted from optional menu of potential measures 

to mandatory list of required measures. 

D. Poultry 

• In order to clarify rule requirements and address EPA concerns regarding poultry 

mitigation measures, the poultry section would be divided into Layer operations, 

and Broiler/Duck/Turkey operations. 

• Mitigation measures would be adjusted from optional menu of potential measures 

to mandatory list of required measures. 

2.1 REASONS FOR IMPLEMENTATION 

2.1.1 FEDERAL AND STATE PLANNING REQUIREMENTS 

The San Joaquin Valley Air Basin has been classified by the United States 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as an extreme nonattainment area for the 

federal 8-hour ozone standard. Consequently, the District adopted the 2007 Eight-Hour 

Ozone Plan (Ozone Plan) in April 2007, which includes a comprehensive set of 

regulatory control measure commitments aimed at reducing emissions of nitrogen 

oxides (NOx) and volatile organic compounds (VOCs), both precursors to ground-level 

ozone. Since amending Rule 4570 is a control measure in the District’s 2007 EightHour Ozone Plan, it is subject to Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Clean Air Act 

(CAA), and California Health and Safety Code (CH&SC) requirements. This rulemaking 

project is intended to support the attainment goals of the District’s 2007 Eight-Hour 

Ozone Plan. The proposed amendments to Rule 4570 (Confined Animal Facilities) will 

seek to obtain as much reduction of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) from confined 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Rule 4570 RACT Analysis October 21, 2010 

10 

animal facilities as is expeditiously practicable, technologically feasible, and 

economically reasonable, as determined by the District’s Governing Board. 

Furthermore, the rule is intended to satisfy the ozone plan commitments as identified in 

the following table. 

Federal and State Planning Requirements 

and District Ozone Plan Commitments 

Subject Reference Requirement 

RACT CAA 182(b)(2) 

and 182(f) 

Ozone attainment plans shall assure that reasonable 

available control technology (RACT) for volatile 

organic compounds (VOC) is in use at sources and 

on source categories at or above the RACT 

threshold. 

Timeline CAA Section 

172(c)(1) 

Ozone attainment plans shall implement control 

measures as expeditiously as practicable, and 

provide for attainment. 

Antibacksliding 

69 Federal 

Register 

23955 

Districts shall develop all control measures listed in 

the one-hour Ozone Plan until the District is 

designated as attainment for the 8-hr NAAQS. 

BARCT 

CH&SC 

40919(a)(3) 

Ozone Plan 

 Ozone attainment plans should provide for best 

available retrofit technology (BARCT) for existing 

permitted sources. 

Feasible 

Controls 

CH&SC 

40914(a)(2) 

Ozone attainment plans should include "all feasible 

control measures." 

Deadline Ozone Plan Rule adoption by the 2nd quarter of 2010. 

Reductions Ozone Plan 

The plan commits to 6.7 tons per day of VOC 

reductions in 2012 and 22.9 tons per day of VOC 

reductions in 2023 

In addition, the California Health and Safety Code (CH&SC) Section 40914(a)(2) states 

that ozone attainment plans should include All Feasible Control Measures (AFCMs). 

The ARB interprets “every feasible control measure to mean that, at a minimum, a 

district considers regulations that have been successfully implemented elsewhere. 

They should also consider going beyond what has already been accomplished by 

evaluation of new technologies and innovative approaches that may offer potential 

emission reductions. Further, districts should consider not only technological factors, 

but also social, environmental, economic (e.g., cost effectiveness), and energy factors 

which prevail in the District, along with the resources realistically available to the district 

to adopt, implement, and enforce the measures.” 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Rule 4570 RACT Analysis October 21, 2010 

11 

In the context of rule development, District staff considers AFCM to mean that each 

rulemaking project seeks to obtain as much emission reduction from the rule’s source 

category as is expeditiously practicable, technologically feasible and economically 

reasonable, as determined by the District’s Governing Board. Towards that end, the 

District has conducted an exhaustive evaluation of all potential control measures that 

could be implemented by the CAFs, and worked with EPA, stakeholders, and the 

scientific community to craft a rule that considers AFCM. District staff also compares 

the current emission limits or control technology against what limits or control 

technology has been promulgated in other districts, as well as reviewing the federal, 

state, and local BACT clearinghouses for the most recent control technology available 

for the source category. The information obtained through this research is used to craft 

the proposed emission limits or imposed control technology. 

2.1.2 STATE LAW – SB 700 

On September 22, 2003, Governor Gray Davis signed into law Senate Bill 700. The bill 

amended air pollution control requirements in the California Health and Safety Code to 

include requirements for agricultural sources of air pollution. Agricultural sources of air 

pollution were the focus of the bill for two main reasons. First, California law had 

previously exempted these sources from requirements to obtain air permits. This 

resulted in a conflict between state and federal law, and California faced sanctions if it 

failed to correct the problem. Had the bill not been signed, new and expanding 

businesses in the state would have faced significant and costly hurdles to obtain air 

permits required under federal law, and the state would have lost billions of dollars in 

federal transportation funding. 

The bill did six main things: (1) It defines "agricultural source" in state law; (2) It 

removes the restriction from state law that prevented air districts from requiring permits 

for agricultural sources; (3) It establishes specific permitting and exemption 

requirements for agricultural sources; (4) It requires emission control regulations in 

areas that do not attain National Ambient Air Quality Standards for PM10; (5) It requires 

permits and emissions mitigation for Confined Animal Facilities (CAFs) that are defined 

by ARB as "large" (based on a review of current scientific data about emissions from 

CAFs and the impact of those emissions on attainment of ambient air standards); and 

(6) It requires CAPCOA to compile a clearinghouse of information about available 

emissions control and mitigation for agricultural activities. It is important to note that the 

bill did not remove the exemption for agricultural operations from the general odornuisance provisions of the Health and Safety Code.2

 

2

 CAPCOA White Paper on SB700 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Rule 4570 RACT Analysis October 21, 2010 

12 

In addition to satisfying District Planning commitments, Rule 4570 was also originally 

designed and adopted on June 18, 2009 to fulfill the following requirements created by 

SB 700. 

SB700/California Health and Safety Code Requirements 

Subject CH&SC 

Sections SB700 / CH&SC Requirements 

Large Confined 

Animal Facility 

Definition (large 

CAF) 

40724.6(a) 

The District shall use the "large CAF" 

definition developed by the California Air 

Resources Board (ARB). 

Deadline 40724.6(b) 

By July 1, 2006 the District shall adopt, 

implement, and submit for inclusion in the 

state implementation plan a rule requiring 

owners of "large" CAF to obtain a permit. 

Degree of 

Mitigation 

Required 

40724.6(d)(1)(B) 

Best Available Retrofit Control Technology 

(BARCT) is the degree of mitigation required 

of large CAF. 

Compliance 

Schedule 40724.6(d)(4) 

Owner/operators shall implement control 

measures within one year of the permit 

issuance date. 

Permit 

Requirements 

to be Included 

in the Rule 

40724.6(d) 

1. The permit shall include an emission 

mitigation plan that demonstrates use of 

BARCT, 

2. The District shall provide for a 30-day public 

noticing and commenting period for 

proposed permits, 

(The District shall review and update 

permits at least once every three (3) years, 

3. The District shall act on completed permit 

applications within six (6) months of receipt, 

4. The permit shall include sufficient 

information to prepare an emission 

inventory of all regulated air pollutants 

emitted from the facility, and 

5. The owner/operators of large CAF shall 

submit a permit application within six (6) 

months of Rule 4570 adoption. 

Impact 

Assessment 40724.6(d) 

Prior to adopting a rule, the District shall 

analyze the following: 

1. Category, number, and size of facilities 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Rule 4570 RACT Analysis October 21, 2010 

13 

SB700/California Health and Safety Code Requirements 

Subject CH&SC 

Sections SB700 / CH&SC Requirements 

affected, 

2. Nature, quantity, and significance of 

emissions in adversely affecting public 

health, the environment, and attainment of 

air quality standards, 

3. Emission reduction potential, 

4. Costs, 

5. Impact on employment and the economy, 

6. Alternative controls, and 

Technical and Practical Feasibility. 

2.1.2.1 RULE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS 

The proposed amendments to Rule 4570 are the latest phase in the District’s ongoing 

effort to regulate emissions from CAFs. As part of this ongoing effort, extensive energy 

has been devoted to evaluating and furthering science in the area of CAF-related 

emissions and potential mitigation measures. The District has worked closely with 

researchers and industry stakeholders, and this effort has yielded new information that 

has been used to develop the proposed amendments; most notably, scientific research 

that has shed new light on dairy silage emissions and potential mitigation measures. 

2.1.2.2 Main Issues Addressed in the Rulemaking Process 

2.1.2.2.1 Difficulty of Controlling Fugitive Emissions 

Because of the large amount of land required to sustain the growth of crops and raising 

of animals, agricultural facilities, by their nature, tend to be very expansive. Agricultural 

production areas can span over a hundred acres with air contaminants primarily 

produced as fugitive emissions from multiple sources and operations at the facility. 

Fugitive emissions are defined as “those emissions which could not reasonably pass 

through a stack, chimney, vent, or other functionally-equivalent opening.” Examples of

fugitive emission sources at agricultural facilities include enteric emissions from 

livestock and emissions from animal waste that is applied to land. 

As discussed below, the majority of emissions from confined animal operations are 

fugitive. The fugitive nature of the emissions from agricultural sources and their 

expansive size impose challenges and limitations to the type of controls that can be 

feasibly applied to reduce emissions. Unlike other stationary sources, where the 

majority of emissions are collected and released through a chimney, pipe, vent, or 

stack, which facilitates the use of traditional emission controls (e.g. fabric filters, 

catalysts, scrubbers, etc.), emissions from agricultural sources are spread out over 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Rule 4570 RACT Analysis October 21, 2010 

14 

large areas and are very dilute at the point of release. These emissions cannot 

reasonably be captured since capture of these emissions would entail monumental 

changes, which have not yet been developed and are likely infeasible, to the methods 

that are currently used for agricultural production. An additional consideration is that, 

unlike traditional stationary sources, potential adverse affects to livestock must also be 

considered when changes in production methods are undertaken, such as those 

needed to capture emissions. 

It would be exceedingly difficult to design and construct a system capable of capturing 

the majority of emissions from these sources without even considering control of these 

emissions; however, even if it were possible to capture most of the fugitive emissions, 

the extremely dilute nature of the emissions emitted from animals at agricultural sources 

would still cause the use of traditional point source controls to be infeasible and 

exceedingly expensive. Because of these constraints, the District has adopted an 

approach in which best management practices are utilized to minimize emissions from 

confined animal facilities prior to their release. See Appendix E for more details 

regarding the infeasibility of emissions capture and control systems. 

2.1.2.2.2 Considerations for Animal Health and Food Safety 

Emission control mitigation measures, especially those that will be applied to animals, 

must take into consideration the health, welfare and productivity of the animals, food 

safety, and bio-security issues. Animal deaths, expenses for treatment or disposal of 

dead animals, as well as loss of productivity due to poor animal health can all be 

devastating to a farmer. Government agencies such as the USDA are also deeply 

concerned about animal health and the related food safety and bio-security issues that 

affect not just individual farmers but also the entire farm industry and the public. 

Diseases such as foot and mouth disease, mad cow disease, or avian flu are all of 

grave concern to the government because of their ability to destroy the entire farm 

industry and/or cause enormous loss of human life. In addition, animal welfare is a 

significant public issue, as demonstrated by the recent passage of Proposition 23 by 

voters in California. While in the past, product boycotts and bad publicity were the main 

publicity threats linked to animal welfare issues, the passage of laws such as 

Proposition 2 brings the additional possibility of litigation that can put farmers out of 

business. It is therefore critical for farmers to have the flexibility to decide the kind of 

 

3

 Proposition 2 was a California ballot proposition in that state's general election on November 4, 2008. 

known as the Standards for Confining Farm Animals initiative. The official title of the statute enacted by 

the proposition is the Prevention of Farm Animal Cruelty Act. The proposition adds a chapter to Division 

20 of the California Health and Safety Code to prohibit the confinement of certain farm animals in a 

manner that does not allow them to turn around freely, lie down, stand up, and fully extend their limbs. 

The measure deals with three types of confinement: veal crates, battery cages, and sow gestation crates. 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Rule 4570 RACT Analysis October 21, 2010 

15 

mitigation measures that will work best for their specific operation by taking into 

consideration animal health and welfare, productivity, food safety and overall biosecurity issues, while at the same time achieving the required level of emission control. 

2.1.2.2.3 Considerations for the Wide Variety of CAFs 

Due to the different methods of confinement and associated manure management, for 

any animal type, there is no single design that encompasses every CAF. Consequently, 

a universal method to control emissions from all CAFs is not only not available, but not 

suitable. In fact, multiple measures are required to implement BARCT for this source 

category. The design and operation of each CAF varies depending on animal type, 

sub-regional climatic conditions, subsurface geologic structure, business practices, and 

preferences of the owners/operators. This is why the District structured the rule such 

that facilities must comply with rule requirements utilizing management practices and 

machinery that owners/operators already have access to. This also acknowledges that 

not all facilities can implement the same options due to infrastructure, conditional use 

permits, water board permits, soil types, production contracts, and other limitations. 

2.1.2.3 Rule 4570 is Based on the Best Available Science 

CAFs are newly-regulated and the supporting science for air emissions from these 

sources has been enhanced significantly but is still developing. In the mitigation 

measure menus of District Rule 4570, District staff considered all of the operations 

within each type of CAF, the available information about emission reduction potential, 

as well as the feasibility and cost of implementing required mitigation measures. CAF 

operators control emissions in every phase of the CAF operation. Although many of the 

measures in the rule are mandated, a menu approach is still required in many cases. 

The menu approach of Rule 4570 allows flexibility as the science of air emissions from 

CAFs evolves. The mitigation measures can be further focused on the operations that 

are shown to have the highest emissions, as is the case for silage and Total Mixed 

Rations (TMR). Independently, the mitigation measures themselves can be revised or 

expanded to include those that are most efficient and cost-effective for each CAF 

emission source. 

2.1.2.4 RACT Cost-Effectiveness 

In calculating the RACT cost effectiveness of Rule 4570, District staff determined cost 

effectiveness for those mitigation measures that had the lowest cost. District staff 

calculated the potential emission reduction of its rule based on the likelihood that only 

the cheapest options will be chosen. This is a prudent and reasoned approach, neither 

an arbitrary nor a capricious one. This opinion was echoed in a recent court decision by 

the California Fifth Appellate District in Association of Irritated Citizens vs. San Joaquin 

Valley Air Pollution Control District (2008). 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Rule 4570 RACT Analysis October 21, 2010 

16 

The RACT cost estimate to implement each required mitigation measure is 

$278,927,616 annually, at a cost-effectiveness of $20,302 per ton of VOC reductions, to 

comply with the proposed rule revisions. To estimate the full impact of Rule 4570, and 

given that CAFs were not required to implement any mitigation measures prior to 

adoption of Rule 4570, the RACT cost-effectiveness includes cost and emissions 

reductions associated with both proposed and existing Rule 4570 requirements. 

2.2 REQUIREMENTS OF RULE 4570 

2.2.1 APPLICABILITY 

Rule 4570 controls VOC emissions from “Large Confined Animal Facilities,” as defined 

by the California Health & Safety Code and the Air Resources Board. According to 

CH&SC 39011.5(a) and 39011.5(a)(1) a CAF is defined as “a source of air pollution or a 

group of sources used in the raising of fowl or animals located on contiguous property 

under common ownership or control including, but not limited to, any structure, building, 

installation, barn, corral, coop, feed storage area, milking parlor, or system for the 

collection, storage, treatment, and distribution of liquid and solid manure, if 

domesticated animals are corralled, penned, or otherwise caused to remain in restricted 

areas for commercial purposes and feeding is by means other than grazing.” 

The ARB was required by CH&SC 40724.6 to review all available scientific information, 

including, but not limited to, emission factors for confined animal facilities; the effect of 

those facilities on air quality in the basin; and other relevant scientific information and to 

develop a definition for a “large” confined animal facility. The applicability thresholds for 

the current rule (which is based on ARBs large CAF definition) and the proposed rule 

are shown in the table below: 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Rule 4570 RACT Analysis October 21, 2010 

17 

Livestock Category Current 

Regulatory Threshold 

Proposed 

Regulatory Threshold 

Dairy 1,000 milking cows 500 milking cows 

Beef Feedlots 3,500 beef cattle 3,500 beef cattle 

Other Cattle Facility 7,500 calves, heifers, or 

other cattle 

7,500 calves, heifers, or other 

cattle 

Poultry Facilities 

Chicken 650,000 head 400,000 head 

Duck 650,000 head 400,000 head 

Turkey 100,000 head 100,000 head 

Swine Facility 3,000 head 3,000 head 

Horses Facility 3,000 head 3,000 head 

Sheep and Goat 

Facilities 

15,000 head of sheep, 

goats, or any combination 

of the two 

15,000 head of sheep, goats, 

or any combination of the two 

Any livestock facility 

not listed above 30,000 head 30,000 head 

2.2.2 EMISSION CONTROL REQUIREMENTS 

Rule 4570 requires multiple mitigation measures from all large CAFs covering the 

following CAFs: Dairy, Beef Feedlots, Other Cattle, Swine, Poultry, and various other 

smaller operations. Each of these facilities consists of multiple sources of emissions 

within the facility. Rule 4570 groups CAF emission sources into five areas: feed/feed 

storage, animal housing, solid waste handling, liquid waste handling, and land 

application of animal wastes. In this way, all of the major emission sources within a 

given CAF are included in the control requirements. Since these facilities generally 

cover a large area and have different processes, a single mitigation measure or 

technology is generally not sufficient in reducing overall emissions from the facility. 

Rather than allow facilities to select a number of measures at the emission source of 

their choosing, Rule 4570 specifically requires a certain number of mitigation measures 

at the majority, if not all, of the emission sources. Mitigation measures required by Rule 

4570 have been tailored for each source of emission, thereby ensuring that the overall 

emissions from a facility are reduced rather than from only a part of the facility, which 

would be the case if that was left as an option in the Rule. The current methodology in 

Rule 4570 provides for the greatest overall control from the facility. 

The majority of VOC emissions from confined animal operations are fugitive 

(evaporation of VOC from feed or waste, for example) or related to gaseous emissions 

generated directly from livestock (enteric). The fugitive nature of the emissions from 

agricultural sources including large amounts of land area impose challenges and 

limitations to the type of controls that can be feasibly applied to reduce emissions. 

Unlike other stationary sources, where the majority of emissions are collected and 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Rule 4570 RACT Analysis October 21, 2010 

18 

released through a chimney, pipe, vent, or stack, emissions from agricultural sources 

are spread out over large areas and are very dilute at the point of release. These 

emissions cannot reasonably be captured at the point of release since capture of these 

emissions would entail monumental changes, which have not yet been developed and 

are likely infeasible, to the methods that are currently used for agricultural production. 

Rather than capture fugitive emissions at the point of release, Rule 4570 provides for 

management practices that minimize the formation of VOCs or control VOCs by moving 

the VOC-forming material to a controlled situation. Some examples of mitigation 

measures are feed manipulation, frequent scraping of animal housing, and covering of 

silage piles. 

Management practices are not the only way that VOC emissions can be controlled. 

Owner/operators may have installed control technology to meet water standards or to 

reduce nuisance complaints from neighbors. These controls are expensive, both in 

terms of capital outlay and in terms of on-going operating and maintenance costs. 

However, they provide a high level of VOC control. Rather than penalize an operator 

who installs these controls by requiring that the mitigation measure be implemented in 

addition to the costly control technology, Rule 4570 allows the owner/operator to 

replace a mitigation measure with the advanced control technology under Alternative 

Mitigation Measures. In this way the emissions from the facility are reduced beyond 

what is required in the rule. Select mitigation measures are discussed in more detail in 

Appendix E of the Staff Report. 

2.2.3 EXAMPLES OF DESIGN/OPERATIONAL INCOMPATIBILITY WITH 

CONTROLS 

As discussed above, due to the different methods of confinement and associated 

manure management, there is no typical CAF. The design and operation of a CAF 

varies depending on animal type, regional climatic conditions, business practices, and 

preferences of the owners/operators. Not all of the mitigation measures included as an 

option in rule 4570 can be reasonably adopted by all facilities due to infrastructure, 

conditional use permits, water board permits, soil types, production contracts, and other 

limitations. This is why the District structured the rule such that facilities comply with 

rule requirements utilizing management practices and machinery that owners/operators 

already have reasonably available to them. Examples of some of the mitigation 

measures that may not be adaptable to all facilities due to facility limitations are 

discussed below: 

Mitigation Measure: “Use non-animal waste-based bedding and non-separated solids 

based bedding for at least 90% of the bedding material, by weight, for freestalls (e.g. 

rubber mats, almond hulls, sand, or waterbeds)”

This measure requires that a non-animal waste bedding material be used in lieu of 

manure or separated solids. However, not every dairy in the Valley has access to non-
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Rule 4570 RACT Analysis October 21, 2010 

19 

manure based material due to the limited resource of these materials (sand, almond 

hulls, etc). 

Sand on the other hand has many disadvantages such as clogging of main drains and 

pipes including breakdowns from the considerable amount of wear and tear on pumps 

and equipment. If the infrastructure does not exist to handle this material it is 

unreasonable to implement this mitigation measure; which is why Rule 4570 consists of 

multiple mitigation measures to allow operators the flexibility to choose measures that 

are appropriate for their method of operation, while still ensuring emission reductions. 

Mitigation Measure: “Use lime or a similar absorbent material in the pens according to the 

manufacturer's recommendations to minimize moisture in the pens.” 

Lime is extremely costly and in many cases not feasible due to soil quality and water 

quality issues. Therefore, while this mitigation measure may work for one facility it may 

not work for another. 

REVIEW OF FEDERAL RACT REQUIREMENTS 

FEDERAL APPLICABILITY OF RACT 

The Clean Air Act (CAA) Section 182(b)(2) states that ozone attainment plans shall assure 

that RACT for volatile organic compounds (VOC) is applied at certain sources. 

“The State shall submit a revision to the applicable implementation plan to 

include provisions to require the implementation of reasonably available 

control technology under section 172(c)(1) of this title with respect to each 

of the following: 

(A) Each category of VOC sources in the area covered by a CTG 

document issued by the Administrator between November 15, 1990, and 

the date of attainment. 

(B) All VOC sources in the area covered by any CTG issued before 

November 15, 1990. 

(C) All other major stationary sources of VOCs that are located in the 

area.” 

Because EPA has not issued a CTG for Confined Animal Facilities, the only applicable 

provision above for the San Joaquin Valley is the need for RACT to be applied to “major 

stationary sources.” Because the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin is classified as an 

extreme ozone area, “major sources” are those that generate more than 10 tons per 

year of NOx or VOC. However, the emissions from the majority of CAFs, if not all, are 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Rule 4570 RACT Analysis October 21, 2010 

20 

considered to be fugitive and therefore expected to be minor sources not subject to 

RACT. In either case, the requirements under the proposed rule far exceed the RACT 

requirements as demonstrated in the analysis in the staff report and in this document. 

2.3 DEFINITION AND STRINGENCY OF RACT 

Although the Clean Air Act itself does not define Reasonably Available Control 

Technology, 40 CFR 51.100(o) defines RACT as: 

”devices, systems, process modifications, or other apparatus or techniques that 

are reasonably available, taking into account (1) the necessity of imposing such 

controls in order to attain and maintain a national ambient air quality standard; (2) 

the social, environmental, and economic impact of such controls; and (3) 

alternative means of providing for attainment and maintenance of such a 

standard.” 

The foregoing definition applies to a specific federal provision regarding approval of 

extension requests for attainment plans for secondary air quality standards, but in the 

absence of a more definitive regulatory description, it is concise and useful. EPA also 

defined RACT in the Strelow memorandum4 as: 

“the lowest emission limitation that a particular source is capable of 

meeting by the application of control technology that is reasonably 

available, considering technological and economic feasibility”. 

2.4 PURPOSE OF FEDERAL RACT 

The Clean Air Act requires RACT for certain sources in all nonattainment areas 

nationwide, regardless of the severity of the ozone problem. 

“172(c) Nonattainment plan provisions 

The plan provisions (including plan items) required to be submitted under 

this part shall comply with each of the following: 

(1) In general 

Such plan provisions shall provide for the implementation of all reasonably 

available control measures as expeditiously as practicable (including such 

reductions in emissions from existing sources in the area as may be 

obtained through the adoption, at a minimum, of reasonably available 

 

4

 The Strelow RACT Memorandum, published in BNA Environmental Reporter, December 9, 1976, pages 1210-1212 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Rule 4570 RACT Analysis October 21, 2010 

21 

control technology) and shall provide for attainment of the national primary 

ambient air quality standards.” 

From this section, it is clear that RACT is intended as the minimum level of control that 

all ozone nonattainment areas must achieve for existing sources. It is also clear that 

RACT is not intended as the only level of control needed for all nonattainment areas to 

attain the ozone standard. Two key conclusions are drawn from the section above: 1) 

states must adopt RACT for existing sources regardless if they are needed for 

attainment, and 2) states may need additional measures beyond RACT to attain the 

standard. This second conclusion leads to the understanding that RACT is not intended 

to be the most stringent level of control in an area’s attainment strategy. 

In the greater context of air pollution control levels, RACT is understood as the “floorlevel” of air pollution controls, not the “ceiling-level.” More effective levels of emissions 

control are termed Best Available Control Technology (BACT) and Lowest Achievable 

Emission Rate (LAER). BACT and LAER are required for new sources, and for existing 

sources undergoing modification. Under state and federal air pollution programs, new 

facilities face more stringent pollution control requirements than existing facilities, with 

the understanding that better controls can be more easily implemented before a facility 

is built, than after it is built. New sources must generally implement BACT5 and existing 

sources must implement a less stringent level of control such as Reasonably Available 

Control Technology (RACT). Additionally, California law establishes an intermediate 

level of control that is the “best available” for “retrofit” to existing sources (entitled Best 

Available Retrofit Control Technology – BARCT6

), recognizing that the state’s worst 

ozone problems demands more effective pollution control than what is usually 

considered “reasonably available.” 

As discussed above, the purposes of BACT, RACT, and BARCT are different. BACT is 

designed to minimize the growth in future stationary source emissions with the 

installation of best available controls; RACT is designed to reduce current stationary 

source emissions from existing sources with the application of reasonably available 

controls; and BARCT is designed to reduce current stationary source emissions even 

further with the application of best available retrofit controls. BACT is identified and 

prescribed in the permitting process on a case-by-case administrative basis. RACT and 

BARCT are developed on an industry-wide basis in the rule development process, 

which concludes with quasi-legislative action by the District Governing Board. 

 

5

 Federal regulations for permitting new facilities require Best Available Control Technology (BACT) for new sources 

in attainment areas, and Lowest Achievable Emission Rate (LAER) – a generally more stringent level –for new 

sources in nonattainment areas. LAER differs from BACT in that economic costs are not considered for candidate 

LAER controls that are considered “Achieved in Practice.” Under California state law, the District is required to apply 

“BACT” for new sources under essentially the same requirements as federal LAER. The District’s “BACT” 

determinations thus fulfill the federal LAER requirements. 6

 California Health and Safety Code (CH&SC) 40406: ... "best available retrofit control technology" means an 

emission limitation that is based on the maximum degree of reduction achievable, taking into account environmental, 

energy, and economic impacts by each class or category of source. 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Rule 4570 RACT Analysis October 21, 2010 

22 

2.5 RACT GUIDANCE FROM EPA REGION IX 

A letter from EPA, Region IX7 outlined documents that could be useful in establishing 

RACT. Those documents include EPA’s Control Techniques Guidelines (CTGs), 

Alternative Control Techniques (ACTs), New Source Performance Standards (NSPS), 

National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs), EPA Best 

Available Control Technology (BACT) Clearinghouse, California Suggested Control 

Measures (SCM) and RACT/Best Available Retrofit Control Technology (BARCT) 

determinations, regulations adopted in other Districts, and guidance and rules 

developed by other state and local agencies. 

To date, EPA has not developed any federal regulations (NSPS, MACT, NESHAP) or 

guidance (CTG, ACT) specific to CAFs. Best Available Control Technologies and 

regulations adopted in other districts are discussed below. 

2.6 ISSUES REGARDING FEDERAL EXPECTATIONS FOR RACT 

RACT is a “moving target.” Technology considered RACT at the time of SIP-approval 

has always been made obsolete by more effective technology at a later date. This view 

of moving-target RACT requirements precludes using only comparing CTGs/ACTs or 

simply relying on EPA SIP-approval of rules as satisfying RACT requirements; 

therefore, other requirements must be considered. 

It should also be noted that since District rules usually fulfill BARCT requirements for 

state purposes, and the control technology established by a BARCT rule is the most 

effective retrofit control for the existing emission category; District rules, generally not 

only satisfy RACT requirements, but go far beyond RACT. 

3 DEMONSTRATION THAT RULE 4570 SATISFIES RACT REQUIREMENTS 

This section of the Document shows how Rule 4570 satisfies federal RACT 

requirements. It focuses on the three broad elements that EPA generally reviews when 

evaluating a district rule for inclusion in the State implementation Plan (SIP): 

applicability, stringency, and enforceability. When EPA approves a rule for inclusion 

into the SIP, EPA must evaluate, at a minimum, if the rule fulfills RACT requirements. 

 

7

 United States Environmental Protection Agency – letter from Andrew Steckel, EPA Region IX to Kurt Karperos, ARB 

dated March 9, 2006 – RACT SIP 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Rule 4570 RACT Analysis October 21, 2010 

23 

3.1 APPLICABILITY OF RULE 4570 COVERS ALL CAFS THAT ARE MAJOR 

SOURCES AND MANY SMALLER FACILITIES 

Pursuant to Section 3.25 of District Rule 2201 (New and Modified Stationary Source 

Review Rule), a major source is a stationary source with post-project emissions or a 

Post Project Stationary Source Potential to Emit, equal to or exceeding one or more of 

the specified threshold values. In determining whether a facility is a major source, 

fugitive emissions are not counted unless the facility belongs to certain specified source 

categories. 40 CFR 71.2 (Definitions, Major Source (2)) states the following: 

(2) A major stationary source of air pollutants or any group of stationary sources as 

defined in section 302 of the Act, that directly emits, or has the potential to emit, 100 

tpy or more of any air pollutant (including any major source of fugitive emissions of 

any such pollutant, as determined by rule by the Administrator). The fugitive 

emissions of a stationary source shall not be considered in determining whether it is 

a major stationary source for the purposes of section 302(j) of the Act, unless the 

source belongs to one of the following categories of stationary source: (i) Coal 

cleaning plants (with thermal dryers); (ii) Kraft pulp mills; (iii) Portland cement plants; 

(iv) Primary zinc smelters; (v) Iron and steel mills; (vi) Primary aluminum ore 

reduction plants; (vii) Primary copper smelters; (viii) Municipal incinerators capable 

of charging more than 250 tons of refuse per day; (ix) Hydrofluoric, sulfuric, or nitric 

acid plants; (x) Petroleum refineries; (xi) Lime plants; (xii) Phosphate rock 

processing plants; (xiii) Coke oven batteries; (xiv) Sulfur recovery plants; (xv) 

Carbon black plants (furnace process); (xvi) Primary lead smelters; (xvii) Fuel 

conversion plants; (xviii) Sintering plants; (xix) Secondary metal production plants; 

(xx) Chemical process plants; (xxi) Fossil-fuel boilers (or combination thereof) 

totaling more than 250 million British thermal units per hour heat input; (xxii) 

Petroleum storage and transfer units with a total storage capacity exceeding 

300,000 barrels; (xxiii) Taconite ore processing plants; (xxiv) Glass fiber processing 

plants; (xxv) Charcoal production plants; (xxvi) Fossil-fuel-fired steam electric plants 

of more than 250 million British thermal units per hour heat input; or (xxvii) Any other 

stationary source category which, as of August 7, 1980, is being regulated under 

section 111 or 112 of the Act. 

Because agricultural operations do not fall under any of the specific source categories 

listed above, fugitive emissions are not counted when determining if an agricultural 

operation is a major source. 40 CFR 71.2 defines fugitive emissions as “those 

emissions which could not reasonably pass through a stack, chimney, vent, or other 

functionally-equivalent opening.” 

3.1.1 Dairy 

Since emissions at a dairy are not actually collected, a determination of whether 

emissions could be reasonably collected must be made by the permitting authority. The 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Rule 4570 RACT Analysis October 21, 2010 

24 

California Air Pollution Control Association (CAPCOA) prepared guidance in 2005 for 

estimating potential to emit of Volatile Organic Compounds from dairy farms. The 

guidance states that “VOC emissions from the milking centers, cow housing areas, 

corrals, common manure storage areas, and land application of manure are not 

physically contained and could not reasonably pass through a stack, chimney, vent, or 

other functionally-equivalent opening. No collection technologies currently exist for VOC 

emissions from these emissions units. Therefore, the VOC emissions from these 

sources are considered fugitive.” The guidance also concludes that, because VOC 

collection technologies do exist for liquid waste systems at dairies, “... the VOC 

emissions from waste lagoons and storage ponds are considered non-fugitive.” The 

District has researched this issue and concurs with the CAPCOA assessment, as 

discussed in more detail below. 

Milking Center: The mechanical system for the milking parlors can be utilized to capture 

the gases emitted from the milking parlors; however in order to capture all of the gases, 

and to keep an appropriate negative pressure throughout the system, the holding area 

would also need to be entirely enclosed. No facility currently encloses the holding area 

since cows are continuously going in and out of the barn throughout the day. The capital 

required to enclose this large area would also be significant. Since the holding area is 

primarily kept open, the District cannot reasonably demonstrate that emissions can pass 

through a stack, chimney, vent, or other functionally equivalent opening. 

Cow Housing: Although there are smaller dairy farms that have partially enclosed 

freestall barns, these barns are not fully enclosed and none of the barns have been 

found to vent the exhaust through a collection device. The airflow requirements through 

dairy barns are extremely high, primarily for herd health purposes. The airflow 

requirements will be even higher in the San Joaquin valley, where temperatures reach 

in excess of 110 degrees in the hot summer. Collection and control of the exhaust 

including the large amounts of airflow have not yet been achieved by any facility. Due to 

this difficultly, the District cannot reasonably demonstrate that emissions can pass 

through a stack, chimney, vent, or other functionally equivalent opening. 

It must also be noted that EPA has determined that emissions from open-air cattle 

feedlots are fugitive in nature.8

 In the District’s judgment, this determination for 

emissions from open feedlots necessitates a similar determination for the open-sided 

freestalls (usually with open access to corrals or pens and free movement of cattle in 

and out of the covered area) typical of the San Joaquin Valley since the typical open 

freestall barn in the San Joaquin Valley bears a far greater resemblance to an extensive 

shade structure located in a large open lot than an actual enclosed building. Therefore, 

emissions from open freestall barns are most appropriately treated as fugitive. 

 

8 Letter from William Wehrum, EPA Acting Administrator, to Terry Stokes, Chief Executive Officer – 

National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (November 2, 2006) 

(http://www.epa.gov/Region7/programs/artd/air/nsr/nsrmemos/cowdust.pdf) 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Rule 4570 RACT Analysis October 21, 2010 

25 

Manure Storage Areas: Many dairies have been found to cover dry manure piles. 

Covering dry manure piles is also a mitigation measure included in District Rule 4570. 

However, the District was not able to find any facility, which currently captures the 

emissions from the storage or handling of manure piles. Although some of these piles 

are covered, the emissions cannot reasonably be captured. Therefore, the District 

cannot reasonably demonstrate that these emissions can pass through a stack, 

chimney, vent, or other functionally equivalent opening. In addition, emissions from 

manure piles have been shown to be insignificant in recent studies. 

Land Application: Emissions generated from the application of manure on land cannot 

reasonably be captured due to the extremely large areas, in some cases thousands of 

acres, of cropland at dairies. Therefore, the District cannot reasonably demonstrate that 

these emissions can pass through a stack, chimney, vent, or other functionally 

equivalent opening. 

Feed Handling and Storage: The majority of dairies store the silage piles underneath a 

tarp or in an Ag-bag. The entire pile is covered except for the face of the pile. The face 

of the pile is kept open due to the continual need to extract the silage for feed purposes. 

The silage pile is disturbed 2-3 times per day. Because of the ongoing disturbance to 

these piles, it makes it extremely difficult to design a system to capture the emissions 

from these piles. In fact, as far as the District is aware, no system has been designed to 

successfully extract the gases from the face of the pile to capture them, and, as 

important, no study has assessed the potential impacts on silage quality of a continuous 

air flow across the silage pile, as would be required by such a collection system. 

Therefore, the District cannot demonstrate that these emissions can be reasonably 

expected to pass through a stack, chimney, vent, or other functionally equivalent 

opening. 

As discussed above, the VOC emissions from the milking center, cows housing, manure 

storage areas, land application of manure and feed handling and storage are 

considered fugitive. The District has determined that control technology to capture 

emissions from lagoons (biogas collection systems, for instance) is in use; therefore, 

these emissions can be reasonably collected and are not fugitive. Therefore, only 

emissions from the non-fugitive sources, such as lagoons, storage ponds, IC engines, 

and gasoline tanks, will be used to determine if dairies are major sources. 

3.1.2 Poultry Houses 

The majority of poultry operations consist of ventilated houses. Since these houses 

have the potential of being fully enclosed and reasonably vented to a stack, the 

emissions from these sources may be considered non-fugitive. 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Rule 4570 RACT Analysis October 21, 2010 

26 

3.1.3 Conclusion – Rule 4570 Applicability Covers All Major Sources 

The applicability of Rule 4570 includes all major CAFs in the Valley, in addition to many 

non-major CAFs. The following table shows the number of facilities that will potentially 

be major sources in the Valley: 

Livestock 

Category

Applicability 

of Rule 4570 

# of facilities 

Subject to 

Rule 4570 

Potential Major 

Source Thresholds 

# of 

Potential 

major 

sources 

Dairy 500 lactating 

cows 

≈900 7,692 milk cow 

equivalents 

≈0-5 

Beef 

Feedlots 

3,500 beef 

cattle 

12 12,500 cattle only if 

lagoons on-site 

0 

Other Cattle 

Operations 

7,500 calves, 

heifers, and 

other cattle 

--- 16,667 heifers & 

22,222 calves 

0 

ChickensBroilers & 

Egg Layers 

400,000 head 32 400,000 broilers and 

layers 

≈32 

Turkeys 100,000 head 35 200,000 turkeys ≈11 

Swine 3,000 head 1 ≈4,500 1 

Sheep and 

Goats 

15,000 head 0 --- --- 

Horses 2,500 head 0 --- --- 

Ducks 400,000 head 0 400,000 ducks 0 

Other 

Livestock 

Not 

Previously 

Mentioned 

30,000 head --- --- --- 

Given that RACT only applies to major sources of emissions, based on the table above, 

only a small percentage of facilities subject to Rule 4570 are actually subject to federal 

RACT requirements. However, Rule 4570 requires facilities greater than the thresholds 

listed above to comply with the requirements of Rule 4570, which is a much larger set of 

facilities, and hence more stringent. 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Rule 4570 RACT Analysis October 21, 2010 

27 

3.2 THE REQUIREMENTS OF RULE 4570 FAR EXCEED RACT 

Rule 4570 requires operators of a CAF to implement multiple VOC mitigation measures 

for the major emission sources at each facility. The sources covered by the proposed 

rule and the number of measures required are shown in the following tables: 

Summary of the Minimum Number of VOC Mitigation Measure Options 

Compared to Total Number of Options 

Area Medium and Large Dairy 

Feed (TMR) 4 mandatory + 1 optional = 5 of 7 total

Silage 1 optional of 2 total 

Option 1 contains four required measures 

Milk Parlor 1 required of 1 total 

Freestalls 2 mandatory + 1 optional = 3 of 5 total 

Corrals 6 mandatory + 1 optional = 7 of 9 total 

Solid Manure 1 optional of 2 total 

Liquid Manure 1 optional of 4 total 

Land Application 2 optional of 6 total 

TOTAL 22 of 35 

Summary of the Minimum Number of VOC Mitigation Measure Options 

Compared to Total Number of Options 

Area Beef Feedlot 

Feed (TMR) 2 optional of 3 total 

Silage 1 optional of 2 total 

Option 1 contains four required measures 

Housing 4 mandatory + 1 optional = 5 of 6 total 

Solid Manure 1 required of 1 total 

Liquid Manure 1 optional of 4 total 

Land Application 2 optional of 6 total 

TOTAL 13 of 22 

Summary of the Minimum Number of VOC Mitigation Measure Options 

Compared to Total Number of Options 

Area Other Cattle 

Feed (TMR) 2 optional of 3 total 

Silage 1 optional of 2 total 

Option 1 contains four required measures 

Freestalls 2 mandatory + 1 optional = 3 of 4 total 

Corrals 5 mandatory + 1 optional = 6 of 8 total 

Solid Manure 1 optional of 2 total 

Liquid Manure 1 optional of 4 total 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Rule 4570 RACT Analysis October 21, 2010 

28 

Land Application 2 optional of 6 total 

TOTAL 16 of 29 

Summary of the Minimum Number of VOC Mitigation Measure Options 

Compared to Total Number of Options 

Area Swine 

Feed (TMR) 2 required of 2 total 

Housing 3 required of 3 total 

Liquid Manure 1 optional of 3 total 

Land Application 1 required of 1 total 

TOTAL 7 of 9 

Summary of the Minimum Number of VOC Mitigation Measure Options 

Compared to Total Number of Options 

Area Chicken Layer 

Feed (TMR) 1 required of 1 total 

Housing 2 required of 2 total 

Solid Manure/ 

Separated Solids 1 required of 1 total 

Liquid Manure 1 optional of 3 total 

TOTAL 5 of 7 

Summary of the Minimum Number of VOC Mitigation Measure Options 

Compared to Total Number of Options 

Area Chicken Broiler, Duck, and Turkey 

Feed (TMR) 1 required of 1 total 

Housing For Chicken Broiler and Ducks: 4 required of 4 total 

For Turkeys: 4 optional of 5 total 

Solid Manure/ 

Separated Solids 1 required of 1 total 

Liquid Manure 1 optional of 3 total 

TOTAL 11 of 14 

3.2.1 RULE 4570 REQUIREMENTS HAVE BEEN APPROVED BY EPA AS BACT 

The District has issued permits to well over 40 new and expanding dairies over the last 

few years. These permits were issued with current Rule 4570 mitigation measures as a 

part of the Best Available Control Technology (BACT) requirements. The District also 

issued permits to a couple of new and modifying poultry operations. These permits 

were also issued with the current Rule 4570 mitigation measures as part of BACT. As 

discussed above, the proposed rule amendments with strengthen the rule requirement 

from the current Rule 4570 requirements. Therefore, since these measures have been 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Rule 4570 RACT Analysis October 21, 2010 

29 

considered to be BACT for these New Source Review projects and BACT is a level of 

control more stringent than RACT, the proposed Rule 4570 exceeds the RACT 

requirements 

3.2.2 RULE 4570 IS FAR MORE EFFECTIVE THAN OTHER AIR DISTRICTS 

As the largest agriculture area in the state, the District took the lead in developing the 

variety of mitigation measures list in the initial District Rule 4570. This list was 

essentially identical for all air districts that identify mitigation measures in their rules. 

However, the proposed rule has re-evaluated all of the mitigation measures from the 

current rule in light of the new science. The proposed rule goes much further than the 

current rule and strengthens current rule requirements, lowers threshold limits to bring 

in additional CAFs, requires additional mitigation measures for the larger VOC sources 

(silage and feed), tightens and clarifies existing mitigation measures, and adds 

additional compliance language including monitoring, testing, and recordkeeping to 

improve enforceability. 

The following California air district rules were compared to District Rule 4570: 

• South Coast AQMD Rule 223, adopted June 2, 2006 

• South Coast AQMD Rule 1127, adopted August 6, 2004 

• Bay Area AQMD Regulation 2 Rule 10, adopted July 19, 2006 

• Ventura County APCD Rule 23 (Exemptions), amended April 8, 2008 

• Sacramento Metropolitan AQMD Rule 496, adopted August, 24, 2006 

• Imperial County AQMD Rule 217 and Policy 38, adopted October 10, 2006 

• Butte County APCD Rule 450, adopted December 21, 2006 

It is important to note that only District Rule 4570 and Sacramento Metropolitan AQMD 

Rule 496 are prohibitory rules. For this reason, these rules include detailed 

recordkeeping as well as monitoring and testing requirements. Generally, the level of 

detail in a prohibitory rule is absent from permit rules because the purpose of a permit 

rule is different from the purpose of a prohibitory rule. 

Class Two Mitigation Measures

The current Rule 4570 has two classes of mitigation measures available as options. 

Class One mitigation measures were generally management practices such as washing 

off manure more frequently, covering feed and manure piles, and manipulating animal 

diets. Class one measures were demonstrated in the Rule to meet BARCT. Class Two 

mitigation measures were more technically advanced capture and control measures 

such as enclosing animal housing and venting to a control device, storing feed and 

manure in bags or enclosed structures and venting to a control device, and using 

digesters or advanced composting methods for manure treatment. Class Two 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Rule 4570 RACT Analysis October 21, 2010 

30 

measures have been identified as measures/technology being beyond BARCT, in some 

cases beyond BACT, not feasible, or not cost effective. Therefore, all Class Two 

measures have been removed from the proposed rule with the exception of the 

measures that proved to be feasible and cost effective. A detailed discussion and 

analysis of the Class Two mitigation measures are included in Appendix E of the Staff 

Report. 

3.2.2.1 South Coast AQMD Rule 223 

3.2.2.1.1 Applicability/Exemption/Large CAF Definition 

South Coast AQMD Rule 223 was adopted on June 2, 2006 and has since not been 

amended. 

South Coast AQMD adopted ARB’s definition of large CAF. District Rule 4570 defines 

large CAF the same way. In addition, proposed Rule 4570 lowers the threshold for the 

following CAFs: 

• Dairies - 1,000 milk cows to 500 milk cows 

• Broilers/ducks and Layers – 650,000 – 400,000

Therefore, Rule 4570 is more stringent in applicability. 

3.2.2.1.2 Requirements for Large Dairy CAFs 

Feed Mitigation Measures 

District Rule 4570 has seven mitigation measures for feed and two mitigation measures 

for silage. Operators must implement four mandatory feed mitigation measures and 

chose another one from a list of three. Operators must also implement one silage 

mitigation measure from a list of two. Since one of the silage mitigation measures in the 

proposed rule includes an option that requires the selection of four additional mitigation 

measures, the facility may actually be required to perform up to four additional 

mitigation measures within that option. In the South Coast AQMD rule, there are nine 

feed mitigation measures, from which the operator must implement five. In the South 

Coast AQMD rule, there is no requirement to control emissions from silage. Since 

silage has been found to be one of the largest sources of emissions at a dairy, District 

Rule 4570 is more stringent. 

Milk Parlor Mitigation Measures 

The milk parlor mitigation measures for SCAQMD includes one Class One and one 

Class Two mitigation measure. District Rule 4570 contains the same mitigation 

measures included in the SCAQMD rule as Class One and has removed the Class Two 

mitigation measures due to infeasibility; see Appendix E in the Staff Report for more 

detail. Therefore, both rules will be considered identical in this category. 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Rule 4570 RACT Analysis October 21, 2010 

31 

Freestall Mitigation Measures 

District Rule 4570 has five mitigation measures, two of which are mandatory to be 

implemented. The facility is also required to choose one additional mitigation measure 

from the remaining three. South Coast AQMD Rule 223 has eight Class One 

mitigations measures, from which facilities are required to implement at least two. 

District Rule 4570 requires one additional mitigation measure; therefore, District Rule 

4570 is more stringent. 

South Coast AQMD Rule 223 has three Class One mitigation measures that are more 

stringent than the corresponding District Rule 4570 measures: (inspect water pipes and 

troughs and repair leaks; remove animal waste that is not dry from individual cow 

freestall beds; and rake, harrow, scrape, or grade bedding in freestalls). The South 

Coast rule requires pipes and troughs to be inspected daily, and manure from freestall 

beds to be removed daily, whereas District Rule 4570 requires both of these measures 

to be carried out once every 7 days for large dairies and once every 14 days for medium 

dairies. The South Coast rule also requires freestall beds to be raked/harrowed/graded 

at least twice every seven days, whereas District Rule 4570 requires this measure to be 

carried out once every 7 days for large dairies and once every 14 days for medium 

dairies. Although, South Coast rule has a higher frequency for these measures, the 

emissions generated from these sources are not significant, including the reductions 

achieved from the overall dairy. In addition, the CAF stakeholders question the cost 

effectiveness of a daily frequency. Based on the above, the frequency required by the 

South Coast Rule can be considered to exceed RACT requirements. 

Corral Mitigation Measures 

District Rule 4570 has 9 mitigation measures, 6 of which are mandatory to be 

implemented. The facility is also required to choose one additional mitigation measure 

from the remaining three. South Coast AQMD Rule 223 has 14 Class One mitigation 

measures and two Class Two mitigation measures, from which facilities are required to 

choose at least six. District Rule 4570 requires one additional mitigation measure; 

therefore, District Rule 4570 is more stringent. 

South Coast AQMD Rule 223 has one Class One mitigation measure (inspect water 

pipes and troughs and repair leaks) that is more stringent than the corresponding 

District Rule 4570 measure. The South Coast rule requires this measure to be carried 

out daily, whereas District Rule 4570 requires it to be carried out only once every 7 

days. Although, South Coast rule has a higher frequency for this measure, the 

emissions reduction difference from the two frequencies are not significant, including 

the reductions achieved from the overall dairy. In addition, as discussed earlier the 

frequency required by the South Coast Rule exceeds RACT when compared to 

inspection leak requirements in other Rules and regulations. 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Rule 4570 RACT Analysis October 21, 2010 

32 

Solid Waste and Separated Solids Mitigation Measures 

The latest science has shown the emissions from solid waste and separated solids pile 

to be a very small fraction of total emissions at dairies. Therefore, District Rule 4570 

contains only two mitigation measures, from which operators are required to choose at 

least one. South Coast AQMD Rule 223 has three Class One mitigation measures and 

three Class Two mitigation measures, from which facilities are required to choose at 

least two. 

Since the emissions from solid manure account for a very small fraction of emissions 

from the overall dairy, there will be a negligible emission reductions difference if more 

measures are required from this category. As discussed earlier, proposed District Rule 

4570 focuses on the larger sources of emissions so that emissions reductions can be 

maximized. 

Liquid Waste Mitigation Measures 

District Rule 4570 has four mitigation measures, from which operators are required to 

choose at least one. South Coast AQMD Rule 223 has five Class One mitigation 

measures and five Class Two mitigation measures, from which operators are required 

to choose at least one. Since only one measure is required by both rules, all the 

mitigation measures are similar in stringency. 

Land Application of Manure Mitigation Measures 

District Rule 4570 has two mitigation measures required out of six optional measures. 

South Coast AQMD Rule 223 has four mitigation measures, from which facilities are 

required to choose at least two. All the mitigation measures are similar in stringency. 

3.2.2.1.3 Requirements for Poultry Large CAFs 

There is a large degree of variability in the manure management practices, housing 

techniques, and potential feeding practices for the different type of poultry operations in 

the Valley. These differences are discussed in detail in the Staff Report. Due to these 

differences, the proposed rule bifurcates the poultry category as follows: 1) layers, 2) 

broilers, ducks and turkeys. 

Although on the surface the poultry requirements results in fewer mitigation measures 

compared to the other rules, the segregating of the types of poultry has allowed the 

mitigation measures to be tailored specifically to the type of poultry operation. In 

addition, all proposed measures are now mandated rather than left as options. Due to 

this reconfiguration and taking into consideration the latest science, the proposed rule 

requirements for poultry are more stringent than South Coast AQMD Rule 223. 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Rule 4570 RACT Analysis October 21, 2010 

33 

3.2.2.1.4 Requirements for Other Large CAF Categories 

In addition to dairy and poultry CAF mitigation measures discussed above, District Rule 

4570 provides specific mitigation measures for beef cattle feedlots, other cattle, and 

swine CAFs. South Coast AQMD Rule 223 does not address mitigation measures for 

these additional CAF categories. For these types of large CAFs, District Rule 4570 is 

more stringent. 

3.2.2.1.5 Requirements – Suspension and Substitution of Mitigation Measures 

Both rules allow the temporary suspension of a mitigation measure upon the 

determination by a certified veterinarian or nutritionist that such a suspension is 

necessary for animal health purposes. The District must be notified within 48 hours, 

and a new measure must be implemented if the suspension is expected to last longer 

than 30 days. In addition, both rules allow for substitution of one mitigation measure 

with an equivalent or more stringent one with the submission of the appropriate 

information. Therefore, the suspension and substitution requirements of both rules are 

equally stringent. 

3.2.2.1.6 Testing, Monitoring, Recordkeeping Requirements 

District Rule 4570 requires records to be maintained and retained for at least five years, 

whereas South Coast AQMD Rule 223 requires records to be retained for three years 

for non-Title V facilities and five years for Title V facilities. District Rule 4570 therefore 

has a more stringent record retention requirement. 

District Rule 4570 requires facilities not subject to the mitigation measure requirements 

to maintain sufficient records to demonstrate their exemption status. Facilities subject 

to the mitigation measure requirements must monitor, test, and maintain sufficient 

records to demonstrate implementation of each mitigation measure selected. Facilities 

must also maintain animal population records. 

South Coast AQMD Rule 223 requires the maintenance of animal population records 

but does not require specific records needed to demonstrate implementation of each 

mitigation measure selected. District Rule 4570 is therefore more stringent in the type 

of records required to be maintained. 

3.2.2.1.7 Conclusion – Comparison with South Coast AQMD Rule 223 

Based on the analysis of the CAF categories in District Rule 4570 and South Coast 

AQMD Rule 223, it is clear that District Rule 4570 is far more stringent than South 

Coast AQMD Rule 223. There are differences in the frequency with which some 

mitigation measures are to be implemented. However, as stated earlier, many of these 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Rule 4570 RACT Analysis October 21, 2010 

34 

sources are a small portion of a dairy’s overall emissions. For the larger emission 

sources, such as feed handling and cow housing, emission strategies from District Rule 

4570 are far more stringent especially since South Coast AQMD Rule 223 does not 

address silage. The District rule requires facilities to choose more mitigation measures, 

makes several mitigation measures mandatory, and includes new mitigation measures 

which are based on the latest science available. 

District Rule 4570 also provides mitigation for more CAF categories (beef feedlots, other 

cattle, and swine) that are not addressed by South Coast AQMD Rule 223, and also has 

much more detailed recordkeeping requirements to demonstrate implementation of 

selected mitigation measures. District Rule 4570 is, therefore, far more stringent than 

South Coast AQMD Rule 223. 

3.2.2.2 South Coast AQMD Rule 1127 

3.2.2.2.1 Applicability/Exemption/Large CAF Definition 

South Coast AQMD Rule 1127 was adopted on August 4, 2004 and has since not been 

amended. 

South Coast AQMD Rule 1127 applies to dairies with 50 or more cows, heifers, and/or 

calves. The rule applies to dairy farms and related operations such as heifer and calf 

farms and the manure produced on them. By comparison, District Rule 4570 applies to 

large and medium CAFs regardless of animal species and covers all major processes 

within the CAF. For dairies, District Rule 4570 applies to those CAFs with more than 

500 milking cows, but applies to more than just manure-handling operations, such as 

feed and silage which are one of the largest sources of VOC emissions at a dairy. 

Although the South Coast Rule has a lower applicability threshold, the overall control 

effectiveness of Rule 1127 when compared to District Rule 4570, is far less stringent. 

3.2.2.2.2 Requirements for Dairy Large CAFs 

Feed, Milking Parlor, and Freestall Mitigation Measures 

District Rule 4570 has seven mitigation measures for feed and two mitigation measures 

for silage. Operators must implement four mandatory feed mitigation measures and 

chose another one from a list of three. Operators must also implement one silage 

mitigation measure from a list of two. There will be a total of five feed mitigation 

measures and one silage mitigation measure. Since one of the silage mitigation 

measures in the proposed rule includes an option that requires the selection of four 

additional mitigation measures, the facility may actually be required to perform up to 

four additional mitigation measures within that option. 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Rule 4570 RACT Analysis October 21, 2010 

35 

For the milking parlor, the District rule has one mandatory mitigation measure. District 

Rule 4570 has five mitigation measures for freestalls, two of which are mandatory to be 

implemented. The facility is also required to choose one additional mitigation measure 

from the remaining three to implement. South Coast AQMD Rule 1127 does not 

address these operations. Since feed and silage are the largest source of emissions at 

a dairy, and SCAQMD rule 1127 does not apply to these categories, then District Rule 

4570 overall, is far more stringent than South Coast AQMD Rule 1127. 

Corral Mitigation Measures 

District Rule 4570 has nine mitigation measures, six of which are mandatory to be 

implemented. The facility is also required to choose one additional mitigation measure 

from the remaining three. South Coast AQMD Rule 1127 has eight mitigation 

measures, from which facilities are required to choose at least six. The mitigation 

measures required by South Coast AQMD Rule 1127 specify the removal of manure 

from the corrals, the minimization of water in the corrals, and the cleaning schedule and 

cleaning strategy for the corrals. While the mitigation measures in the two rules are not 

phrased the same way, they cover similar requirements. District Rule 4570 requires 

one additional measure; therefore, Rule 4570 is more stringent. 

Solid Waste, Separated Solids, and Liquid Waste, and Land Application Mitigation 

Measures 

District Rule 4570 has two mitigation measures for solid waste/separated solids, from 

which operators are required to choose at least one. For liquid waste, District Rule 

4570 has four mitigation measures for liquid waste, from which operators are required to 

choose at least one. District Rule 4570 has two mitigation measures for land 

application of manure required out of six optional measures. South Coast AQMD Rule 

1127 states that manure removed must be either treated at an approved manure 

processing operation, or applied on agricultural land with local approval. South Coast 

AQMD Rule 1127 does not specify different mitigation measures for solid waste, 

separated solids, or liquid waste. District Rule 4570 has specific mitigation measures 

for each of these operations; therefore, it is able to better target the reduction of 

emissions for the different operations. District Rule 4570 is therefore as stringent or 

more stringent than South Coast AQMD Rule 1127. 

3.2.2.2.3 Requirements for Other Large CAFs 

District Rule 4570 provides specific mitigation measures for beef cattle feedlots, other 

cattle, poultry, and swine CAFs. South Coast AQMD Rule 1127 does not address 

mitigation measures for these additional CAF categories. Therefore, District Rule 4570 

is more stringent under this category. 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Rule 4570 RACT Analysis October 21, 2010 

36 

3.2.2.2.4 Requirements – Suspension and Substitution of Mitigation Measures 

South Coast AQMD Rule 1127 provides one exemption per year from one of the corral 

clearings required every 90 days if the moisture content in the corrals is greater than 

50%. The operator is required to notify the AQMD 30 days before the required 

cleaning, and test moisture content weekly. If moisture content is still above 50% when 

the cleaning is due, the operator may claim the exemption. 

In comparison, District Rule 4570 allows an operator to temporarily suspend any 

mitigation measure as long as the suspension is recommended by a licensed 

veterinarian of animal nutritionist on the basis of animal health. The operator must 

notify the District within 48 hours prior to the suspension. If the suspension is expected 

to last longer than 30 days, then the operator must submit a new mitigation plan that 

identifies a new mitigation measure to be implemented in place of the suspended one. 

District Rule 4570’s exemption under this category is much more stringent because it is 

only a temporary suspension that cannot exceed 30 days, whereas South Coast AQMD 

Rule 1127’s exemption may be permanent, without any requirement to makeup for the 

suspended mitigation. 

Therefore, in this category of mitigation measure suspensions/substitutions, District 

Rule 4570 is more stringent than South Coast AQMD Rule 1127. 

3.2.2.2.5 Testing, Monitoring, Recordkeeping Requirements 

Both South Coast AQMD Rule 1127 and District Rule 4570 require monitoring, record 

keeping and source testing as appropriate and sufficient to provide evidence of each 

mitigation measure being implemented. 

In addition to record keeping, Rule 1127 requires an annual report of manure being 

shipped out of the dairy. No annual reporting is required by Rule 4570. Rule 1127 

requires records be retained for 3 years for minor sources and 5 years for major 

sources, whereas Rule 4570 requires records be retained for five years for all sources. 

Overall, the monitoring, testing and record keeping requirements are similar for both 

rules. 

3.2.2.2.6 Conclusion – Comparison with South Coast AQMD Rule 1127 

For dairy CAFs, District Rule 4570 is far more stringent than South Coast AQMD Rule 

1127. District Rule 4570 requires emission reductions from four additional emission 

categories - milk parlors, feed/silage, freestall barns, and liquid manure - that are not 

addressed at all by South Coast AQMD Rule 1127 as well as requiring emission 

reductions from CAFs from other animal species. Feed alone comprises of the majority 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Rule 4570 RACT Analysis October 21, 2010 

37 

of emissions at a dairy. District Rule 4570 requires facilities to choose more mitigation 

measures, makes several mitigation measures mandatory, and includes new mitigation 

measures which are based on the latest science. District Rule 4570 also provides 

specific mitigation measures for beef cattle feedlots, other cattle, poultry, and swine 

CAFs, while South Coast AQMD Rule 1127 does not. District Rule 4570 is, therefore, 

far more stringent than South Coast AQMD Rule 1127.

3.2.2.3 Bay Area AQMD Regulation 2 Rule 10 (Rule 2-10) 

Bay Area AQMD Rule 2-10 is a permit rule. As such, it has fewer specifics about large 

CAFs than District Rule 4570, which is a prohibitory rule. 

3.2.2.3.1 Applicability/Exemption/Large CAF Definition 

Bay Area AQMD Rule 2-10 was adopted on July 19, 2006 and has since not been 

amended. 

Bay Area AQMD adopted ARB’s definition of large CAF. District Rule 4570 defines 

large CAF the same way. In addition, proposed rule 4570 lowers the threshold for the 

following CAFs: 

• Dairies - 1,000 milk cows to 500 milk cows 

• Broilers/ducks and Layers – 650,000 – 400,000

Therefore, Rule 4570 is more stringent in applicability. 

3.2.2.3.2 Requirements for Large CAFs 

The Bay Area permit conditions must implement control measures that represent 

Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) to reduce emissions of VOC, NOx 

and PM from the facility. Rule 2-10 requires RACT mitigation measures rather than the 

more stringent BARCT controls required by District Rule 4570 as specifically noted in 

the Bay Area AQMD staff report for their rule. A phone call to Bay Area AQMD staff 

verified that there is no list of RACT mitigation measures in place should a large CAF 

apply for a permit. In this respect, District Rule 4570 is more stringent than Bay Area 

AQMD Rule 2-10. 

3.2.2.3.3 Testing, Monitoring, Recordkeeping Requirements 

District Rule 4570 requires records to be maintained and retained for at least five years, 

whereas Bay Area AQMD Rule 2-10 requires records to be retained for three years. 

District Rule 4570 therefore has a more stringent record retention requirement. 

District Rule 4570 requires facilities not subject to the mitigation measure requirements 

to maintain sufficient records to demonstrate their exemption status. Facilities subject 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Rule 4570 RACT Analysis October 21, 2010 

38 

to the mitigation measure requirements must maintain sufficient records to demonstrate 

implementation of each mitigation measure selected. Facilities must also maintain 

animal population records. Bay Area AQMD Rule 2-10 requires the maintenance of 

animal population records but does not require specific records needed to demonstrate 

implementation of each mitigation measure selected. District Rule 4570 is therefore 

more stringent in the type of records required to be maintained. 

3.2.2.3.4 Conclusion – Comparison with Bay Area AQMD Regulation 2 Rule 10 

District Rule 4570 requires facilities to choose specific mitigation measures, makes 

several mitigation measures mandatory, and includes new mitigation measures which 

are based on the latest science available. In addition, District Rule 4570 has lower 

applicability thresholds for dairies, chickens, and ducks. Based on this information and 

the discussion above, District Rule 4570 is far more stringent than Bay Area AQMD 

Rule 2-10.

3.2.2.4 Ventura County APCD Rule 23 – Exemptions from Permit 

In response to SB 700, Ventura County APCD revised its “Exemptions from Permit” rule 

to remove an exemption for agricultural operations, including CAFs. Ventura County 

APCD does not have a specific rule for CAFs. In its staff report for the rule revision, 

Ventura County APCD staff noted that no facilities in their jurisdiction would meet the 

“large CAF” definition and there was no expectation that a large CAF would move into 

the area in the foreseeable future; therefore, no separate CAF rule was necessary. 

3.2.2.4.1 Applicability/Exemption/Large CAF Definition 

Ventura County APCD adopted ARB’s definition of large CAF. District Rule 4570 

defines large CAF the same way. In addition, proposed rule 4570 lowers the threshold 

for the following CAFs: 

• Dairies - 1,000 milk cows to 500 milk cows 

• Broilers/ducks and Layers – 650,000 – 400,000

Therefore, Rule 4570 is more stringent in applicability. 

3.2.2.4.2 Requirements for Large CAFs 

There are no facilities that would trigger the large CAF threshold within the county, as 

stated in the Ventura County staff report for amending Rule 23. The Ventura County 

APCD New Source Review Rule does not list mitigation measures for large CAFs. 

Instead, BACT would be triggered by a new CAF that met the “large CAF” definition or 

BACT would be triggered if an existing CAF expanded operations enough to meet the 

“large CAF” definition. At that point, Ventura County APCD staff would determine BACT 

for the CAF. 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Rule 4570 RACT Analysis October 21, 2010 

39 

3.2.2.4.3 Conclusion – Ventura County APCD Rule 23 

Ventura County APCD does not have a specific rule for CAFs, therefore District Rule 

4570 is more stringent. 

3.2.2.5 Sacramento Metropolitan AQMD Rule 496 

Like District Rule 4570, Sac Metro AQMD Rule 496 is a prohibitory rule, meaning that 

there are detailed requirements for operators. 

3.2.2.5.1 Applicability/Exemption/Large CAF Definition 

Sacramento Metropolitan (Sac Metro) AQMD Rule 496 was adopted on August 24, 

2006 and and has since not been amended. 

Sac Metro AQMD Rule 496 adopted ARB’s definition of large CAF. District Rule 4570 

defines large CAF the same way. In addition, proposed Rule 4570 lowers the threshold 

for the following CAFs: 

• Dairies - 1,000 milk cows to 500 milk cows 

• Broilers/ducks and Layers – 650,000 – 400,000

Therefore, Rule 4570 is more stringent in applicability. 

3.2.2.5.2 Requirements for Dairy Large CAFs 

Feed Mitigation Measures 

District Rule 4570 has seven mitigation measures for feed and two mitigation measures 

for silage. Operators must implement four mandatory feed mitigation measures and 

chose another one from a list of three. Operators must also implement one silage 

mitigation measure from a list of two. There will be a total of five feed mitigation 

measures and one silage mitigation measure. Since one of the silage mitigation 

measures in the proposed rule includes an option that requires the selection of four 

additional mitigation measures, the facility may actually be required to perform up to 

four additional mitigation measures within that option. 

Sac Metro AQMD has seven Class One mitigation measures for feed and two Class 

One mitigation measures for silage. There are three Class Two mitigation measures for 

silage. Operators must implement four feed mitigation measures and one silage 

mitigation measure for five total feed mitigation measures. 

District Rule 4570 requires a total of six feed/silage mitigation measures which is 

greater than the five required by Sac Metro Rule 496. In addition, District Rule 4570 

includes newly developed mitigation measures and is making several of the optional 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Rule 4570 RACT Analysis October 21, 2010 

40 

mitigation measures mandatory. Sac Metro has not re-evaluated these measures using 

the latest science; therefore, the District rule is far more stringent. 

Milk Parlor Mitigation Measures 

District Rule 4570 has one required milk parlor mitigation measure. Sac Metro AQMD 

Rule 496 also only requires one mitigation measure for milk parlors. Since both rules 

only require the use of one mitigation measure, both rules will be considered identical 

for this category. 

Freestall Mitigation Measures 

District Rule 4570 has five freestall mitigation measures, two of which are mandatory to 

be implemented. The facility is also required to choose one additional mitigation 

measure from the remaining three. Sac Metro AQMD Rule 496 has eight Class One 

mitigations measures and one Class Two mitigation measure from which facilities are 

required to implement at least two. 

Rule 4570 will be considered more stringent since it requires more mitigation measures. 

Corral Mitigation Measures 

District Rule 4570 has nine corral mitigation measures, six of which are mandatory to be 

implemented. The facility is also required to choose one additional mitigation measure 

from the remaining three. Sac Metro AQMD Rule 496 has 15 Class One mitigation 

measures, which are all optional, and three Class Two mitigation measures, from which 

facilities are required to choose at least six. District Rule 4570 requires one additional 

mitigation measure; therefore in this respect District Rule 4570 is more stringent. 

Sac Metro AQMD Rule 496 has one Class One mitigation measure (inspect water pipes 

and troughs and repair leaks) that is more stringent than the corresponding District Rule 

4570 measure. The Sac Metro rule requires this measure to be carried out daily, 

whereas District Rule 4570 requires it to be carried out only once every 7 days. 

Although, Sac Metro AQMD rule has a higher frequency for this measure, the emissions 

generated from this source is not significant, including the reductions achieved from the 

overall dairy. In addition, the frequency required by the Sac Metro AQMD rule exceeds 

RACT when compared to inspection leak requirements in other Rules and regulations. 

Overall, District Rule 4570 is more stringent. 

Solid Waste and Separated Solids Mitigation Measures 

The latest science has shown the emissions from solid waste and separated solids pile 

are a very small fraction of emissions at dairies. Therefore, District Rule 4570 contains 

only two mitigation measures, from which operators are required to choose at least one. 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Rule 4570 RACT Analysis October 21, 2010 

41 

Sac Metro AQMD Rule 496 has five Class One mitigation measures and three Class 

Two mitigation measures, from which facilities are required to choose at least two. 

Since the emissions from solid manure account for a very small fraction of emissions 

from the overall dairy, there will be a negligible emission reductions difference if more 

measures are required from this category. As discussed earlier, proposed District Rule 

4570 focuses on the larger sources of emissions so that emissions reductions can be 

maximized. 

Liquid Waste Mitigation Measures 

District Rule 4570 has four mitigation measures mitigation measures, from which 

operators are required to choose at least one. The Sac Metro rule has four Class One 

mitigation measures and four Class Two mitigation measures, from which facilities are 

required to choose at least one. Since only one measure is required, both rules are 

equivalent in this respect. 

Land Application of Manure Mitigation Measures 

District Rule 4570 has two mitigation measures required out of six measures. Sac 

Metro AQMD Rule 496 has six Class One mitigation measures, from which facilities are 

required to choose at least two. Since two mitigation measures are required, both rules 

are equivalent in this respect. 

3.2.2.5.3 Requirements for Poultry Large CAFs 

There is a large degree of variability in the manure management practices, housing 

techniques, and potential feeding practices for the different type of poultry operations in 

the valley. These differences are discussed in the staff report. Due to these 

differences, the proposed rule breaks the poultry category down as follows: 1) layers, 2) 

broilers, ducks and turkeys. 

Although on the surface the poultry requirements results in fewer mitigation measures 

compared to the other rules, the segregating of the types of poultry has allowed the 

mitigation measures to be tailored specifically to the type of poultry operation. In 

addition, all proposed measures are now mandated rather than left as options. Due to 

this reconfiguration and taking into consideration the latest science, the proposed rule 

requirements for poultry are more stringent than Sac Metro AQMD Rule 496. 

3.2.2.5.4 Other Large CAFs 

In addition to dairy and poultry CAF mitigation measures discussed above, District Rule 

4570 provides specific mitigation measure option tables for beef cattle feedlots, other 

cattle, and swine CAFs. Sac Metro AQMD Rule 496 does not address mitigation 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Rule 4570 RACT Analysis October 21, 2010 

42 

measures for these additional CAF categories. For these types of large CAFs, District 

Rule 4570 is more stringent. 

3.2.2.5.5 Requirements – Suspension and Substitution of Mitigation Measures 

Both rules allow for substitution of one mitigation measure with an equivalent or more 

stringent measure with the submission of the appropriate application. District Rule 4570 

also allows the temporary suspension of a mitigation measure upon the determination 

by a certified veterinarian or nutritionist that such a suspension is necessary for animal 

health purposes. The District must be notified within 48 hours, and a new measure 

must be implemented if the suspension is expected to last longer than 30 days. The 

Sac Metro AQMD rule does not have a specific provision for temporary suspension of 

mitigation measures. Based on the discussion, Rule 4570 is as stringent as Sac Metro 

Rule 496.

3.2.2.5.6 Testing, Monitoring, Recordkeeping Requirements 

The testing, monitoring, and recordkeeping provisions of District Rule 4570 and Sac 

Metro Rule 496 are essentially identical and are of equal stringency. 

3.2.2.5.7 Conclusion – Comparison with Sac Metro AQMD Rule 496 

For dairy CAFs, District Rule 4570 is far more stringent than Sac Metro AQMD Rule 

496. District Rule 4570 requires emission reductions from four additional emission 

categories - milk parlors, feed, freestall barns, and liquid manure - that are not 

addressed at all by Sac Metro AQMD Rule 496 as well as requiring emission reductions 

from CAFs from other animal species. The District rule also requires facilities to choose 

more mitigation measures, makes several mitigation measures mandatory, and includes 

new mitigation measures which are based on the latest science available. In addition, 

Rule 4570 applies to dairies with greater than 500 milk cows and 400,000 layers and 

broilers while Sac Metro AQMD Rule 496 applies to dairies with 1,000 milk cows or 

more and broiler and layer operations with more than 650,000 birds. Based on this 

information and the discussion above, District Rule 4570 is far more stringent than Sac 

Metro AQMD Rule 496. 

3.2.2.6 Imperial County APCD Rule 217 – Large Confined Animal Facilities 

Permits Required and ICAPCD Policy Number 38 

Imperial County APCD Rule 217 is a permits rule. The rule directs operators to a policy 

for the mitigation measures. The policy also spells out the number of mitigation 

measures the operator must implement for each operation within the CAF. The 

following discussion compares the mitigation measures in the Imperial County policy to 

the measures in District Rule 4570. 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Rule 4570 RACT Analysis October 21, 2010 

43 

3.2.2.6.1 Applicability/Exemption/Large CAF Definition 

Imperial County APCD Rule 217 was adopted on October 10, 2006 and has since not 

been amended. 

Imperial County APCD adopted ARB’s definition of large CAF. District Rule 4570 

defines large CAF the same way. In addition, proposed Rule 4570 lowers the threshold 

for the following CAFs: 

• Dairies - 1,000 milk cows to 500 milk cows 

• Broilers/ducks and Layers – 650,000 – 400,000

Imperial County Policy Number 38 only lists mitigation measures for dairy operations 

and beef feedlot operations while District Rule 4570 covers additional CAFs (swine, 

chicken layer, chicken broiler, duck and turkey, and other CAFs). Therefore, more 

CAF’s are subject to the requirements of District Rule 4570 than Imperial County APCD 

Rule 217. 

Therefore, Rule 4570 is more stringent in applicability. 

3.2.2.6.2 Requirements for Dairy Large CAFs 

Feed Mitigation Measures 

District Rule 4570 has seven mitigation measures for feed and two mitigation measures 

for silage. Operators must implement four mandatory feed mitigation measures and 

chose another one from a list of three. Operators must also implement one silage 

mitigation measure from a list of two. There will be a total of five feed mitigation 

measures and one silage mitigation measure. Since one of the silage mitigation 

measures in the proposed rule includes an option that requires the selection of four 

additional mitigation measures, the facility may actually be required to perform up to 

four additional mitigation measures within that option. Imperial County APCD policy has 

a menu of nine mitigation measures for feed with mitigation measures for silage 

included in the menu. Imperial County APCD policy requires the selection of three feed 

mitigation measures. This is three less mitigation measures than required by District 

Rule 4570. 

In addition, the compliance time for the mitigation measures in the Imperial County 

APCD are longer than for those in District Rule 4570 (compliance time for removing 

feed after a rain event is 72 hours in the Imperial County policy and 24 hours in District 

Rule 4570). 

Therefore, District Rule 4570 is far more stringent than the Imperial County APCD 

policy. 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Rule 4570 RACT Analysis October 21, 2010 

44 

Milk Parlor Mitigation Measures 

Imperial County Policy has only one mitigation measure for the milk parlor. The District 

rule also only has one mitigation measure. Since the mitigation measure is identical, 

both rules are identical under this section. 

Freestall Mitigation Measures 

District Rule 4570 has five freestall mitigation measures, two of which are mandatory to 

be implemented. The facility is also required to choose one additional mitigation 

measure from the remaining three. Imperial County APCD policy has eight mitigation 

measures, from which operators are required to choose at least two. Since District Rule 

4570, requires three mitigation measures and mandates two out of the three, District 

Rule 4570 is more stringent than Imperial County APCD’s policy. 

Corral Mitigation Measures 

District Rule 4570 has nine mitigation measures, six of which are mandatory to be 

implemented. The facility is also required to choose one additional mitigation measure 

from the remaining three. Imperial County APCD Policy Number 38 has eight mitigation 

measures, from which facilities are required to choose at least four. 

For three of the mitigation measures, the compliance times differ between the District 

rule and the Imperial County APCD policy. For these measures, the Imperial County 

policy compliance times are longer than the District rule time lines. For these three 

mitigation measures, the District rule is more stringent because the District rule’s 

compliance time is much shorter for otherwise identical mitigation measures. 

For two of the mitigation measures, the manure depth differs significantly between the 

District rule and the Imperial County APCD policy. For these measures, the Imperial 

County policy compliance depths are deeper than the District rule depths. For these 

two mitigation measures, the District rule is more stringent because the District rule’s 

compliance depths are shallower for otherwise identical mitigation measures. 

Therefore, District Rule 4570 is far more stringent than the Imperial County Policy 

Solid Waste and Separated Solids Mitigation Measures 

District Rule 4570 has two solid waste and separated solids mitigation measures, from 

which operators are required to choose at least one. Imperial County APCD policy has 

four mitigation measures from which facilities are required to choose at least one. 

Therefore, both rules are identical in this category. 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Rule 4570 RACT Analysis October 21, 2010 

45 

There are a few differences in the Imperial County APCD policy mitigation measures 

themselves, when compared to District Rule 4570. Imperial County APCD policy 

requires that manure piles are covered year round whereas District Rule 4570 requires 

that the piles be covered from October through May – the months the District is most 

likely to have rainfall. Separated solids piles are not specifically addressed in the 

Imperial County policy. These differences, although worth noting, are not expected to 

influence the overall effectiveness of Rule 4570 and Rule 4570 is as stringent as the 

Imperial County APCD policy. 

Liquid Waste Mitigation Measures 

District Rule 4570 has four liquid waste mitigation measures mitigation measures, from 

which operators are required to choose at least one. Imperial County APCD policy has 

four mitigation measures, from which operators are required to choose at least one. 

Imperial County APCD Policy 38 contains an option to manage the facility so that 

lagoons only contain waste from milking parlor and storm water as a mitigation 

measure. District Rule 4570 does not contain this option. This difference, although 

worth noting, is not expected to influence the overall effectiveness of Rule 4570 and 

Rule 4570 is as stringent as the Imperial County APCD policy. 

Land Application of Manure Mitigation Measures 

District Rule 4570 has two mitigation measures that are mandatory if applicable. 

Imperial County APCD policy has a menu of five mitigation measures from which 

operators are required to choose two. Since two measures are required by both rules, 

they will be considered identical under this category. 

3.2.2.6.3 Requirements for Beef Feedlot Large CAFs 

Feed Mitigation Measures 

District Rule 4570 has seven mitigation measures for feed and two mitigation measures 

for silage. Operators must implement four mandatory feed mitigation measures and 

chose another one from a list of three. Operators must also implement one silage 

mitigation measure from a list of two. There will be a total of five feed mitigation 

measures and one silage mitigation measure. Since one of the silage mitigation 

measures in the proposed rule includes an option that requires the selection of four 

additional mitigation measures, the facility may actually be required to perform up to 

four additional mitigation measures within that option. Imperial County APCD policy 

requires the selection of three feed mitigation measures. Rule 4570 requires at least 5 

mitigation measures, two more than Imperial County. Therefore, District Rule 4570 is 

more stringent than the Imperial County APCD policy 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Rule 4570 RACT Analysis October 21, 2010 

46 

Animal Housing Mitigation Measures 

District Rule 4570 has nine mitigation measures, six of which are mandatory to be 

implemented. The facility is also required to choose one additional mitigation measure 

from the remaining three. Imperial County APCD Policy Number 38 has nine mitigation 

measures, from which facilities are required to choose at least four. Since operators in 

Imperial County are required to implement fewer mitigation measures, District Rule 

4570 is more stringent. 

For three of the mitigation measures, the compliance times differ significantly between 

the District rule and the Imperial County APCD policy. For these measures, the Imperial 

County policy compliance times are longer than the District rule time lines. For these 

three mitigation measures, the District rule is more stringent because the District rule’s 

compliance time is much shorter for otherwise identical mitigation measures. 

For three of the mitigation measures, the manure depth differs between the District rule 

and the Imperial County APCD policy. For these measures, the Imperial County policy 

compliance depths are deeper than the District rule depths. For these two mitigation 

measures, the District rule is more stringent because the District rule’s compliance 

depths are shallower for otherwise identical mitigation measures. 

Solid Waste and Separated Solids Mitigation Measures 

District Rule 4570 has two solid waste and separated solids mitigation measures, from 

which operators are required to choose at least one. Imperial County APCD policy has 

four mitigation measures from which facilities are required to choose at least one. 

Therefore, both rules are identical in this category. 

Imperial County APCD policy requires manure piles to be covered year round whereas 

District Rule 4570 requires that the piles be covered from October through May – the 

months most likely to have rainfall. The differences between the two districts, although 

noteworthy are not expected to influence the overall effectiveness of Rule 4570 and 

Rule 4570 is as stringent as the Imperial County APCD policy. 

Liquid Manure Handling 

Imperial County APCD policy does not address liquid manure handling for beef feedlot 

operations. District Rule 4570 requires one measure to be selected out of a menu of 

options. Therefore, Rule 4570 is more stringent in this category. 

Land Application of Manure Mitigation Measures 

District Rule 4570 has two mitigation measures that are mandatory if applicable. 

Imperial County APCD policy has a menu of five mitigation measures from which 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Rule 4570 RACT Analysis October 21, 2010 

47 

operators are required to choose two. Since two measures are required by both rules, 

they will be considered identical under this category. 

3.2.2.6.4 Requirements for Other Large CAFs 

In the same manner as for dairy and beef feedlot operations, District Rule 4570 

specifies mitigation methods for large confined animal facilities other than dairies and 

beef feedlots. Imperial County APCD Policy 38 only has mitigation measures for diary 

and beef feedlot operations. In comparing the two documents, District Rule 4570 is 

therefore more comprehensive and more stringent. 

3.2.2.6.5 Requirements – Suspension and Substitution of Mitigation Measures 

Both rules allow for substitution of one mitigation measure with an equivalent or more 

stringent one with the submission of the appropriate application. District Rule 4570 also 

allows the temporary suspension of a mitigation measure upon the determination by a 

certified veterinarian or nutritionist that such a suspension is necessary for animal 

health purposes. The District must be notified within 48 hours, and a new measure 

must be implemented if the suspension is expected to last longer than 30 days. The 

Imperial County APCD policy does allow for temporary suspension of mitigation 

measures under circumstances similar to District Rule 4570. Based on the discussion, 

Rule 4570 is as stringent as Imperial County APCD Rule 217.

3.2.2.6.6 Testing, Monitoring, Recordkeeping Requirements 

District Rule 4570 requires records to be maintained and retained for at least five years, 

whereas Imperial County APCD Rule 217 requires records to be retained for two years. 

District Rule 4570 therefore has a more stringent record retention requirement. 

District Rule 4570 requires facilities not subject to the mitigation measure requirements 

to maintain sufficient records to demonstrate their exemption status. Facilities subject 

to the mitigation measure requirements must maintain sufficient records to demonstrate 

implementation of each mitigation measure selected. Facilities must also maintain 

animal population records. Imperial County APCD Rule 217 requires the maintenance 

of animal population records but does not require specific records needed to 

demonstrate implementation of each mitigation measure selected. District Rule 4570 is 

therefore more stringent in the type of records required to be maintained. 

3.2.2.6.7 Conclusion – Comparison with Imperial County APCD Rule 217 

District Rule 4570 contains mitigation measures that have been developed using 

detailed analysis of the latest science available. Several of these mitigation measures 

are mandatory unlike the optional nature of the mitigation measures in Imperial County 

APCD Rule 217. District Rule 4570 also has a lower applicability threshold for dairies 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Rule 4570 RACT Analysis October 21, 2010 

48 

(500 milk cows). In addition, Imperial County Policy Number 38 only lists mitigation 

measures for dairy operations and beef feedlot operations while District Rule 4570 

covers additional CAFs (swine, chicken layer, chicken broiler, duck and turkey, and 

other CAFs). Based on this information and the discussion above, District Rule 4570 is 

far more stringent than Imperial County APCD Rule 217. 

3.2.2.7 Butte County AQMD Rule 450 – Large Confined Animal Facilities 

Butte County AQMD Rule 450 is a permits rule. It outlines, in general terms, the 

requirements for a complete permit application and how the staff would evaluate and 

approve/disapprove the permit application. 

3.2.2.7.1 Applicability/Exemption/Large CAF Definition 

Butte County APCD Rule 450 was adopted on December 21, 2006 and has since not 

been amended. 

Butte County APCD adopted ARB’s definition of large CAF. District Rule 4570 defines 

large CAF the same way. In addition, proposed rule 4570 lowers the threshold for the 

following CAFs: 

• Dairies - 1,000 milk cows to 500 milk cows 

• Broilers/ducks and Layers – 650,000 – 400,000

Therefore, Rule 4570 is more stringent in applicability 

3.2.2.7.2 Large CAF Requirements 

The Butte County AQMD rule requires large CAFs to obtain a permit and to submit and 

implement a mitigation plan; however the number of mitigation measures required and 

specific mitigation measures is not listed. District Rule 4570 spells out the number of 

mitigation measures an operator is required to implement and has a menu of specific 

mitigation measures. In this regard, District Rule 4570 is more stringent than the Butte 

County rule. 

3.2.2.7.3 Testing, Records, and Reporting Requirements 

The Butte County rule requires that all CAFs record the daily number of animals on-site. 

These records are to be kept on-site for two years and presented if requested. District 

Rule 4570 requires testing and records be kept to demonstrate compliance with the 

operator’s selected mitigation measures. The records are to be kept for five years and 

presented upon the request of EPA, ARB, or the District. Because District Rule 4570 

covers testing, as well as having a longer record retention time, it is more stringent than 

Butte County AQMD Rule 450. 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Rule 4570 RACT Analysis October 21, 2010 

49 

3.2.2.7.4 Conclusion – Comparison with Butte County AQMD Rule 450 

District Rule 4570 contains actual mitigation measures that are required to be 

implemented by facilities. These mitigation measures were developed using the latest 

science available. In addition, District Rule 4570 has lower applicability thresholds for 

dairies, chickens, and ducks. Based on this information and the discussion above, 

District Rule 4570 is more stringent than Butte County AQMD Rule 450. 

3.2.3 EFFECTIVENESS OF RULE 4570 

The number of mitigation measures required for each CAF are sufficient and effective in 

obtaining the required reductions regardless of the type of mitigation measure selected. 

In cases where similar measures or control efficiency exist under a category, Rule 4570 

only allows one of those measures to be selected and account towards the total overall 

number of mitigation measures required, eliminating the possibility that the required 

reductions are not achieved. 

The District performed an emission reduction analysis as Appendix B in the Rule 4570 

Staff Report, which demonstrated that even if the least costly mitigation measures were 

selected, the facility would still manage to achieve the emission reductions needed to be 

in compliance with the Rule. Since facilities’ will most likely elect to implement 

measures that are the least costly and since the analyses in Appendix B demonstrates 

that the emission reduction requirements would be met by selecting the least costly 

measures, then it is reasonable to state that any combination of mitigation measures will 

achieve the required reductions. 

3.3 RULE 4570 IS LEGALLY AND PRACTICALLY ENFORCEABLE 

Pursuant to Rule 4570 Section 7.2, owners/operators subject to the requirements of 

Rule 4570 (section 5.0) shall maintain the following: 

• Copies of all of the facility's permits 

• Records of the number of animals of each species and production group at the 

facility on a quarterly basis. Examples of records that may be used include, but 

are not limited to, Dairy Herd Improvement Association records and animal 

inventories done for financial purposes. 

• Records sufficient to demonstrate compliance with all applicable mitigation 

measures. 

Sections 7.3 through 7.8 require specific recordkeeping conditions for each mitigation 

measure. 

Section 7.10.1 requires that an initial source test of all VOC control devices and aerated 

static piles used to comply with rule requirements not later than six (6) months after the 

date of installation, and at least once every twelve (12) months thereafter. 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Rule 4570 RACT Analysis October 21, 2010 

50 

Section 7.11 states the required test methods to demonstrate compliance with the 

applicable mitigation measures. 

Because permit rules and prohibitory rules have different purposes, they are not directly 

comparable in terms of monitoring, testing, and records. Prohibitory rules include these 

requirements so that the operator can demonstrate compliance with the rule’s control 

requirements. In a permit rule, it is expected that required monitoring, testing, and 

records would be outlined in a prohibitory rule applicable to the source category. 

All rules except District Rule 4570 and Sac Metro Rule 496 are permit rules. These 

rules have one records provision - all CAF operators must keep records of the number 

of animals at the facility. By contrast, the Sac Metro and District rules, which are 

prohibitory rules, outline specific records for each type of mitigation measure performed 

in addition to the number-of-animals provision. This means the Sac Metro and District 

rules are more stringent than the other air districts’ rules, but that is to be expected 

given the difference in the types of rules being compared (permit versus prohibitory). 

The monitoring and measurement requirements of Rule 4570, which include minimum 

testing frequency, are designed to ensure that adequate testing is conducted to 

demonstrate compliance with the appropriate mitigation measures and such measures 

are operating in a manner that optimizes the VOC reductions. 

It should also be noted that owners may use documents, such as Regional Water 

Quality Board Waste Nutrient Management Plans that list the numbers of animals in 

each production group (e.g. calves, heifers, milkers, and dry cows) to comply with this 

monitoring requirement. The rule will not require owners/operators to maintain a set of 

records exclusively for the use of the San Joaquin Valley Air District. Other monitoring 

and testing requirements only apply to facilities that choose mitigation measures where 

such monitoring or testing would assist in demonstrating compliance. 

3.4 EMISSION REDUCTIONS ACHIEVED BY RULE 4570 EXCEED DISTRICT 

PLANNING REQUIREMENTS 

Although some of the individual mitigation measures in District Rule 4570 were in use 

before Rule 4570 was adopted, there would be no requirement to keep emissionreducing measures in place if District Rule 4570 did not exist. Rule 4570 requires that 

large CAF operators and medium sized dairies put together a suite of mitigation 

measures into a mitigation plan which would reduce VOC emissions for every process 

within the CAF. Many of these measures are now mandatory while still allowing a menu 

of options, where applicable. This provides operators flexibility to reduce emissions in 

the most effective way for their facility while assuring that VOC emissions from all 

processes within the facility are controlled. Within the confines of Rule 4570, operators 

can change their mitigation measures through mitigation plan updates. Based on all the 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Rule 4570 RACT Analysis October 21, 2010 

51 

required mitigation measures, Rule 4570 is expected to reduce emissions by 25.23 

tons/day in 2012 and 31.76 tons/day by 2023. A detailed analysis is included in 

Appendix B of the Staff Report. 

3.4.1 Least Costly Mitigation Measure Requirements are Effective 

The proposed rule has tightened the measures, making many of the measures 

mandatory for dairies, feedlot/other cattle. All the mitigation measures for poultry and 

swine are now mandated with no menu option. Where options are available, those 

options are limited and each optional measure is expected to result in similar emission 

reductions. The number of mitigation measure required for each CAF are sufficient and 

effective in obtaining the required reductions regardless of the mitigation measure 

selected. In several cases, Rule 4570 only allows one of multiple measures under a 

category to be selected that go towards the total overall number required due to similar 

control efficiencies or similarity in the type of mitigation. The analysis shown in 

Appendix B of Rule 4570 Staff Report, demonstrates that even if the least costly 

mitigation measures are selected, the facility would still manage to get the emission 

reductions needed and be in compliance with the Rule. Since facilities’ will most likely 

elect to implement measures that are the least costly and since the analyses in 

Appendix B of Rule 4570 Staff Report demonstrates that the emission reduction 

requirements would be met by selecting the least costly measures, then it is reasonable 

to state that any combination of mitigation measures will achieve the required 

reductions. In addition, since the mitigation measures in Rule 4570 meet BARCT, then 

these measures are expected to exceed RACT. 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Rule 4570 RACT Analysis October 21, 2010 

52 

This page intentionally blank.