Background, Implementation and Impacts
Sharon Nizich
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
A National Academy of Science study of air emissions from animal feeding operations (AFO), conducted at the request of the USDA and US EPA, found that no reliable emission factors exist for these facilities. In response to the study and public concerns, the EPA and industry representatives developed the AFO Air Quality Agreement with the goals of monitoring and evaluating emissions, promoting consensus on methodologies for estimating emissions, and ensuring compliance with federal regulations intended to reduce air pollution. As of December 2005, over 6700 farms have been entered into the agreement database, including 479 in Ohio. Monitoring of particulate matter, hydrogen sulfide, volatile organic compounds and ammonia from selected facilities that represent different species and regions is expected to begin in the spring of 2006 and continue for two years. If emissions of hydrogen sulfide or ammonia are found to be greater than 100 lbs/day, those facilities will be required to report emissions under CERCLA* and EPCRA**. Although these regulations do not require permitting and have no associated costs, environmental groups have been known to sue for non-reporting. For facilities with emissions of volatile organic solids, nitrogen oxides or particulate matter greater than the thresholds set in the Clear Air Act (CAA), permitting could be required with an expected 3 to 5 year phase-in for implementing emission control practices. The CAA thresholds vary for different locations depending on emissions from all sources. The long term goal is to develop a process-based emissions model easily used by the farming operation to estimate emissions, rather than monitoring every farm.
*Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act
** Environmental Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act
For the PowerPoint presentation slides from the seminar which includes
additional links, see
http://www.oardc.ohio-state.edu/ocamm/Nizich%20PPT%20final.pdf
For more information regarding the agreement, see
http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/agreements/caa/cafo-agr-0501.html
Discussion:
Mike Lilburn (OSU) questioned why administration of the agreement has been contracted to John Thorne, a non-scientist, rather than the EPA. Nizich noted that, while she was not involved in that decision, the
EPA’s role is to collect data for quality assurance and validation, not study administration. For the monitoring study, EPA will be more involved than usual in conducting site evaluations.
Lilburn asked why some facilities, such as the National Turkey Federation and National Chicken Council, chose not to participate in the agreement. Nizich responded that, legally, the agreement was structured
so that those signing had to pay a civil penalty upfront in order for the agreement to be legally binding. Although the agreement clearly states that there is no assumption of guilt on the part of the participants, m many saw it as an admission of guilt and were not willing to sign.
David White (Ohio Livestock Coalition) noted that many in the poultry industry were more concerned that the agreement did not allow for appeals or challenges of the data collected.
White asked if the 100 lbs/day threshold was a one time emission or over a period of time. Nizich responded that reporting is needed for a one-time emission; however, a report only needs to be filed once, not daily. A follow up report is to be filed one year later, but that is the end of the required reporting.
White asked the status of challenges to the EPA’s right to have developed and implemented the agreement. Nizich noted that several challenges have been consolidated and a decision is expected from the Circuit Court in the next few months.
Mike Monnin (NRCS) asked how many of the 479 farms that signed up in Ohio will participate in the monitoring study. Nizich replied that the farms in the study are unknown at this time. It is expected that Al Heber from Purdue University will be selected as the Science Advisor (SA) for the monitoring study. The SA is responsible for selecting the Principal Investigators (PI) who will conduct the study at specific sites, which are required to be within in a 2-hour drive of the PI. It is expected that PIs will be University
agricultural air quality experts.
Lingying Zhao (OSU) asked how research on agricultural air quality currently funded by the USDA will impact the study. Nizich responded that relevant data will be included in the monitoring study.
Zhao asked if the study to research mitigation technologies will be at the same farms as the monitoring study. Nizich replied that mitigation studies are expected to be conducted on some of the same farms, although are not covered under the AFO Consent Agreement.
Lilburn asked how variations in seasonal discharges, such as increased particulate matter while planting during a dry season, will impact regulations. Nizich responded that regulations will vary depending on each state’s implementation plan (SIP). There is a possibility that tillage practices could be affected but one should consult with the state air quality agency to see how agricultural tillage is accounted for in the SIP. Currently there are no PM10 (particulate matter less than 10 microns) non-attainment areas in the state of Ohio. However, farming operations should consult with their state agricultural contacts to stay abreast of Ohio regulations.
Notes by Mary Wicks
The OCAMM (Ohio Composting and Manure Management) Program is funded by OARDC/OSU.