# 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



# 2198 9 1 9 9 0 1 9 9 1 1 9 9 2 1993 1994 199 5 199 6 1 9 9 7 1 9 9 8 1 9 9 9 2000 2001 200 2 2 0 0 3 2 0 0 4 2 0 0 5 2 0 0 6 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 1,400,000Metric 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, NH 3 

### , H 2 

### S, N 2 

### O, CO 2 

### , CH 4 

### 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 CO 2 e/year) • Reduced odor • Improved stormwater management • Potential for biogas use (renewable electricity, heat) Air-tight membrane cover

anaerobic digestion biogas CH 4 

## 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, Ap plication 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 an imal 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 ra tified 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 fr om $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 pe rmits 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 1/06 1/07 1/05 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 gene rate a database from which emission estimati on methodologies can be developed

• Particulate Matter (PM 10, 

## PM 2.5 

## and TSP) • Ammonia • Hydrogen Sulfide • VOCs 

# • Quality Assurance Project Plan and Standard Operating Procedures

15

# Uniqueness of the NAEMS • Pollutants (PM 2.5 

### , PM 10 

### , TSP, NH 3 

### , H 2 

### S, CO 2 

### , CH 4 

### , VOC) – Add-on studies measure N 2 

### 0, 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 BH AC HJ YZ 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 4-b 3-b 2-b Sites Barns Basins Lagoons Corrals Total
Dairy Swine 023 140 5 5 12 16 0 3 1 1 5 0 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



# 17WI5A 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