National Air Emissions 

Monitoring Study
 

Emerging Trends and Environmental 

Challenges Facing Livestock Production
 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
 

Clean Air Act Advisory Committee
 

January 8, 2009
 

Michael C. Formica
 

National Pork Producers Council
 

Chief Environmental Counsel
 

202-680-3820
 

formicam@nppc.org
 

If all you ever do is all you’ve ever done, 

then all you’ll ever get is all you ever got. 

– Thomas Friedman 

September 13, 2008 

1
Background and Overview
 

• National Pork Board 

– Research, Education, Promotion 

– The Other White Meat 

– Mandatory Check-off 

– Reports to USDA-AMS 

• National Pork Producers Council 

– Des Moines & Washington, D.C.
 

– Membership 
 

• Voluntary Producer Membership 

• 43 State Pork Councils 

• Allied Industry Membership 

– Public Policy / Advocacy Arm 

• Lobbying, Litigation & Trade Negotiations 

Background and Overview 

US Pork Industry Today 

• 67,000 Pork Producers Nationwide 

– 116.2 million hogs marketed 

– Total gross receipts ~$15 billion 

– Supporting > 550,000 rural jobs 

• 34,720 full time equivalent jobs 

• 127,492 agricultural jobs 

• 110,665 manufacturing jobs (packing) 

• 65,224 professional jobs (vet/finance) 

• $20.7 billion personal income 

• $34.5 billion gnp 

2
1989 

1990 

1991 

1992 

1993 

1994 

1995 

1996 

1997 

1998 

1999 

2000 

2001 

2002 

2003 

2004 

2005 

2006 

2007 

Background and Overview 

• 100 million gallon ethanol plant 

– 37 million bushels of corn 

– 80 Iowans directly employed 

• 37 million bu corn Direct jobs 

Farrow-finish 800 

Or Wean-finish 242 

Or Beef feedlot 278 

• Further processing of livestock to meat?
 

Background and Overview 

U.S. Pork Exports 

0 

200,000 

400,000 

600,000 

800,000 

1,000,000 

1,200,000 

1,400,000 Metric Tons 

U.S. - Canada FTA 

NAFTA 

(Mexico) 

WTO Uruguay Round 

(Japan & South Korea) 

U.S.-Taiwan 

Pork Deal 

China and Taiwan 

WTO Accession 

Russia Pork 

TRQs 

Australia FTA 

Year 

3
Background and Overview 

Top Global Exporter of Pork 

Background and Overview 

Production Evolution 

• Economic Cycles Drive Efficiency Gains 

• Indoor Production 

– Food Safety, Disease, Predation, 

Environmental 

• Feed Mills and Integration 

– Food Safety, Quality Control, Consistency 

4
Background and Overview 

Production Evolution 

Background and Overview 

5
Production 

• Corn & Soybean Meal 

• Specialization 

• Manure Management & Environmental 

Concerns 

• Deep Pits vs Lagoons 

Lagoon Management 

6
Lagoon Management 

Methane Capture Project 

7
Animal manure storage is a widespread Animal manure storage is a widespread

source of methane emissions source of methane emissions

anaerobic decomposition 

(bacteria) 

VOC, NH3, H2S, N2O, CO2, CH4 

Odor Greenhouse gases 

Open-air manure lagoon 

Air Quality Concerns: 

• Greenhouse gas emissions (Fessenden Farm ~200 metric tons methane/year) 

• Odor 

• Ammonia 

Covered manure lagoon 

Biogas collection system 

Generator/flare 

Benefits: 

• Reduced GHG emissions (Fessenden Farm > 4,000 metric tons CO2e/year) 

• Reduced odor 

• Improved stormwater management 

• Potential for biogas use (renewable electricity, heat) 

Air-tight membrane cover 

anaerobic digestion 

biogas 

CH4 

Simple covers can capture methane from Simple covers can capture methane from

lagoons and reduce GHG emissions lagoons and reduce GHG emissions

8
Deep Pits 

9
Environmental Challenges 

• Pork Industry Response 

– Settlement of lawsuits 

– Engaged In National Dialogue 

• Regulators, Environmentalists 

– CAFO Rules and Permits 

– Improved Manure Management 

• Deep Pits, Setbacks, Application Improvements 

• Nutrient Management Plans 

• Goal: Zero Discharges 

Environmental Challenges 

10
 

Environmental Challenges 

Air Emissions 

CERCLA/EPCRA 

Reporting Rule 

National Air 

Emissions 

Monitoring Study 

Neighbor Relations 

0 25 50 75 100 

Pathogens in 

water 

Antibiotics in 

water 

Phosphorus in 

water 

Nitrogen in water 

Odor - land 

applying 

Odor - housing 

Less serious Very serious 

Neighbor Complaints 

Public 

11
Manure application and odor control 

0 25 50 75 100 

Center Pivot Irrigation 

Other 

Portable Tank - Spreading 

Irrigation with Traveling Guns 

Broadcast Spreading 

Injection 

Percent 

Current (%) 

Planned (%) 

Environmental Challenges 

Timeline 

• 1998-1999 

– EPA OECA investigations into CAFO air emissions 

– EPA/DOJ determination that insufficient data exists to support 

enforcement action 

– First suggestion of settlement agreements as method to develop data 

• 2000 - 2002 

– Referral to National Academy of Science 

– Report found EPA lacked scientifically credible methodologies for 

estimating emissions from AFOs 

• 2002 – 2004 

– EPA commences settlement negotiations with livestock producers 

– Sierra Club, Inc. v. Tyson Foods, Inc., 299 F. Supp. 2d 693 (W.D. Ky. 

2003): Failure to report emissions under CERCLA/EPCRA 

12
Environmental Challenges
 

CERCLA / EPCRA Reporting 

–	 Proposal 

• Exemption from reporting requirement related to 

releases of hazardous substances to the air where the 

source of those hazardous substances is animal waste at 

farms. 

• EPA proposed finding that reports are unnecessary 

because there is no reasonable expectation that Federal,

state or local emergency responders would respond to 

such report 

–	 NPPC Compromise 

• Develop threshold based on facility size 

• Large CAFO’s – file periodic report 

– Final Rule 

• Preserved CERCLA Reporting Exemption 

• EPCRA Report Based on size

(Large CAFOs – 1000 Animal Units)
 

AFO Consent Agreements 

•	 EPA announced Air Compliance Agreement Jan. 21, 2005. 

•	 Organized agreements by animal type, evaluating each separately and sending them to the Environmental Appeals Board 

(EAB) for signature and approval. 

•	 Sign-up period for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

Air Quality Compliance Agreement (the Agreement) ended on 

Aug.12, 2005. 

•	 Environmental Appeals Board ratified all agreements by mid August 2006. 

•	 2,568 agreements representing 6,267 farms 

• 1,856 swine, 

• 468 dairy, 

• 204 layers, 

13
AFO Consent Agreements
 

•	 Producer Agreed To 

–	 Pay a civil penalty, ranging from $200 to $100,000, depending on the size and number of AFOs. 

–	 Pay up to $2,500 into a fund for a nationwide emissions monitoring 

program 

–	 Make facilities available for monitoring. 

–	 Apply for all applicable air permits and comply with permit conditions. 

–	 Report any qualifying releases of ammonia (NH3) and hydrogen 

sulfide (H2S) as required by section 103 of CERCLA and section 

304 of EPCRA. 

•	 Producers Received A Covenant Not To Sue For Past and Current 

Violation During Course of Study 

•	 Legal Challenge 

–	 DC Circuit (Association of Irritated Residents v. E.P.A., v EPA, 494 F.3d 1027, July 17, 2007) 

–	 USDA-AMS (In re: Mark McDowell, Jim Joens, et at., AMA PPRCIA Docket No. 05-001, Dec 18, 2008) 

General Timeline of the NAEMS
 

• 2004 Protocol Development 

• 2005 PI Selection, Staffing, Budgeting at Purdue 

• 2006 Site Selection, Quality Assurance Project Plan 

• 2007 Setup of Barn and Open Source Emission Monitoring 

• 2008 Data Collection, Analysis and Reporting 

• 2009 Data Collection, Analysis and Reporting 

• 2010 Prepare Final Report for EPA 

• 2011 EPA Develops Emissions Estimating Methodologies 

14
General Timeline of the NAEMS 

1/04 1/05 1/06 1/07 1/08 

Protocol development 

PI selection, staffing, budgeting 

Producer Signup 

EPA’s review of Consent Agreements 

Data collection (2 yrs) 

1/09 1/10 

EPA’s Development of Emission Estimation Methodologies EEM 

Site setup 

EPA’s QAPP review 

QAPP development Site selection, SOPs, SMPs 

NAEMS 

Equipment acquisition 

Today 

NAEMS 

• Objective: 

– Collect quality-assured emission

measurements from representative farms

across America to generate a database from 

which emission estimation methodologies can be developed 

• Particulate Matter (PM10, PM2.5 and TSP) 

• Ammonia 

• Hydrogen Sulfide 

• VOCs 

• Quality Assurance Project Plan and

Standard Operating Procedures 

15
 

Uniqueness of the NAEMS 

• Pollutants (PM2.5, PM10, TSP, NH3, H2S, CO2, CH4, VOC) 

– Add-on studies measure N20, odor and airborne pathogens. 

• 24-months of continuous monitoring at each farm 

• 38 livestock & poultry barns tested with same protocols 

• Quality assurance/quality control (raising the bar) 

– Oversight by the U.S. EPA OAQPS in Raleigh, NC 

– Quality Assurance Project Plan (Category 1) 

• 57 standard operating procedures (SOPs) 

• 15 site monitoring plans (SMPs) 

– On-site audits 

• Novel methods 

– NV barn airflows measured with 3-D sonic anemometers. 

– Fan operation measured with vibration sensors. 

– Custom designed data acquisition & processing systems 

National Milk Producers Federation National Pork Board United Egg Producers National Chicken Council 

U.S. EPA Agricultural Air Research Council 

Battelle Independent Monitoring Contractor (Purdue University) 

Administrator (Dimmitt) Project Director (Heber) 

Meat Chicken Producer Egg Producers Pork Producers Milk Producers 

RL AC HJ YZ BH

JK JK LC AC JH 

XL CD QL 

Purdue 

(TL) 

NCSU 

(WR) 

NCSU 

(LW) 

Cornell 

(CG) 

UMN 

(LJ) 

WSU 

(PN) 

UCD 

(RZ) 

UCD 

(FM) 

TAMU 

(KC) 

Purdue 

(JN) 

ISU 

(JK) 

XL 

E team 

(AL, MB) 

W team 

(CF, JW) 

Cont Lag. 

(SC) 

DL DL DL DC 

SB 

SL 

SL 

SL SL SL

Open-Source Project 

Manager (Grant) 

Assist. Proj. 

Mgr (Lim) 

Ops Mgr 

(Bogan) 

QA Mgr 

(Ramirez) 

Assist. Proj. 

Mgr (Ni) 

VOC Mgr 

(Xiao) 

GA Mgr 

(Diehl) 

DA Mgr 

(Cortus) 

DA 

(Wang) 

RA 

(Hanni) 

Broiler Barns 

Layer Barns 

Swine Barns 

Dairy Barns Dairy Lagoons 

Swine Lagoons/Basins 

16
Summary of NAEMS Sites
 

Species 

Barns per Site Total number Number of Area Sites 

2-b 3-b 4-b Sites Barns Corrals Lagoons Basins Total 

Dairy 

Swine 

023 

140 

5 

5 

12 

16 

1 3 0

0 5 1

4 

6 

Broilers 

Layers 

001 

102 

1 

3 

2 

8 

0 0 0

0 0 0

0 

0 

Total 266 14 38 1 8 1 10 

Legend 

1 – Broilers 

2 – Layers 

3 – Swine finishers 

4 – Sows (swine) 

5 – Dairies 

A – Open source 

B – Barn source 

WA5A 

WA5B 

CA1B 

CA2B 

CA5B 

IA3A 

IA4B 

WI5A 

WI5B 

OK3A 

OK4A 

OK4B 

TX5A 

IN2B 

IN2H 

IN3B 

IN4A 

IN5A 

IN5B NC2B 

NC3A 

NC3B 

NC4A 

NC4B 

NY5B 

NAEMS Broiler Site 

Litter on Floor 

Tunnel Ventilated 

17
WI5A

WI5B

NY5B

NC4A

NC4B

NY5B

Legend 

1 – Broilers 

2 – Layers 

3 – Swine finishers 

4 – Sows (swine) 

5 – Dairies 

A – Open source 

B – Barn source 

WA5A 

WA5B 

CA1B 

CA2B 

CA5B 

IA3A 

IA4B 

OK3A 

OK4A 

OK4B 

TX5A 

IN2B 

IN2H 

IN3B 

IN4A 

IN5A 

IN5B NC2B 

NC3A 

NC3B 

NC4A 

NC4B 

NAEMS Layer Sites 

High Rise 

Dropping Boards 

High Rise 

Curtain Backed Cages 

Tunnel Ventilated 

High Rise 

Curtain Backed Cages 

Manure Belt 

Legend 

1 – Broilers 

2 – Layers 

3 – Swine finishers 

4 – Sows (swine) 

5 – Dairies 

A – Open source 

B – Barn source 

WA5A 

WA5B 

CA1B 

CA2B 

CA5B 

IA3A 

IA4B 

WI5A 

WI5B 

OK3A 

OK4A 

OK4B 

TX5A 

IN2B 

IN2H 

IN3B 

IN4A 

IN5A 

IN5B NC2B 

NC3A 

NC3B 

NAEMS Dairy Sites 

Naturally Ventilated 

Flush, Manure+ bedding 

Naturally Ventilated 

Flush, Manure bedding 

Crossflow Ventilated 

Flush, Shavings 

bedding 

Tunnel Ventilated 

Scrape, Dig. Man 

Bedding 

Tunnel Ventilated 

Scrape, Dig. Man Bedding 

Lagoon 

Lagoon 

Lagoon 

Corral 

18
NAEMS Swine Barn Sites 

Finish: Deep Pit 

WA5A 

WA5B 

CA1B 

CA2B 

CA5B 

Legend 

1 – Broilers 

2 – Layers 

3 – Swine finishers 

4 – Sows (swine) 

5 – Dairies 

A – Open source 

B – Barn source 

WI5A Sow WI5B 

Lagoon 

IN2B
 

IN3B
 

IN4A
 

IN5A
 

IN5B
 

Sow: Pull-Plug 

Sow: Deep Pit 

IA3A 

IA4B 

Finisher Basin 

OK3A 

OK4A 

OK4B 

TX5A 

Finisher Lagoon
 

Sow Lagoon
 

NY5B 

Finish: Pull-Plug 

NC2B 

NC3A 

NC3B 

NC4A 

NC4B 

Sow: Pull-Plug
 

Finisher Lagoon
 

Sow Lagoon
 

Open Source Measurement Sites
 

Type Region 

Dairy Southwest- TX 

Dairy 

Dairy 

Midwest- WI 

East- IN 

1 

Dairy Northwest- WA 

Pork-sow Southeast- NC 

Pork-finisher Southeast- NC 

Pork-sow Midwest- IN 

Pork-finisher Midwest- IA 

Pork-sow West- OK 

Pork-finisher West- OK 

19
Criticisms 

• Inadequate Number of Facilities Monitored 

• Not fully responsive to NAS demands 

• No study of mitigation technologies 

• Industry Funded / Lack of Environmentalist 

Participation 

• No Adequate Oversight 

Independent Review and Oversight 

• Independent Review Committee 

– Dr. Robert Burns and Dr. Hongwei Xin 

• Iowa State University 

• Conducted Kentucky Broiler Study (Tysons v. Sierra Club) 

on Behalf of Sierra Club 

• “We were impressed with the ammonia emissions study which 

scientists at Iowa State did for Tyson as part of the fulfillment 

of the settlement from the Sierra Club v. Tyson lawsuit. This 

report is definitely the most comprehensive ever done on the 

issue of chicken house emissions and we are pleased that it has 

been completed and can be viewed by the public.” 

– Aloma Dew 

Sierra Club Midwest Representative 

September 7, 2007 Statement/Press Release 

• SAC, PASPAC 

20
Questions ? 

Michael C. Formica 

National Pork Producers Council 

Chief Environmental Counsel 

202-680-3820 

formicam@nppc.org 

21