Research, Progress and Regulatory Programs for Odor and Air Quality from ... compliance agreement negotiated between the U.S. government and the livestock.
Research, Progress and Regulatory Programs for Odor and Air Quality from Intensive Livestock and Feeding Operations in America Seminar to Civil & Environmental Engineering Department, Technion -IIT, 11/8/04 Dr. Albert J. Heber, Professor, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN USA
Introduction [S1] I appreciated last year’s invitation from Drs. Lahav and Broday last summer to join them in a proposal to the Binational Agricultural Research and Development Program. Fortunately, the proposal was funded and I find myself here for the first project meeting. I am honored to be here and to talk to you about livestock odor and air quality. [S2] The United States is facing some very serious livestock odor nuisance issues in agriculture. And, of course, these problems are exacerbated by the increasing consolidation and vertical integration of livestock production. Besides the odor that precipitates nuisance lawsuits from annoyed citizens, ammonia, hydrogen sulfide, and dust sometimes exceed regulatory emission limits or property-line concentrations. Some of our livestock producers have ventured out into deep water by developing mega-farms without special odor abatement methods. Some of them have been served with wave after wave of costly nuisance suits and government enforcement actions. [S3] In this presentation, I will give you the latest about the environmental pressures facing U.S. livestock producers. I will describe research efforts in measuring and controlling barn emissions. Finally, I will briefly describe a proposed innovative compliance agreement negotiated between the U.S. government and the livestock industries. Odor Nuisance Suits [S4] The first wave of environmental accountability that leaves a producer gasping for air is a nuisance suit. In nuisance suits, neighbors usually seek actual damages, punitive damages, an injunction to close the operation, or a court order to cause the operator to abate the odor (Miner, 1997). Nuisance suits are expensive (Miner, 1995), and they have proliferated in Iowa since its Supreme Court ruled six years ago that nuisance defense through “Right to Farm” laws was unconstitutional (Van Sickle, 2003). Some of the major court cases during the last decade (as of March 2003) are listed here. [S5] Currently, there are at least 14 lawsuits pending against Iowa pork producers, the most ever on the books at any one time (Lee, 2004). Iowa currently has about 10,000 farms with an average inventory of 1,560 pigs and the inventories of the targeted production sites in these lawsuits range from 300 to 7,200 head. Six years ago in Missouri, a jury awarded $5.2 million to 52 neighbors for nuisance claims against pork production owned by Continental Grain. Premium Standard Farms, the No. 2 U.S. pork producer and owner of 1.25 million pigs in Missouri, later purchased them. According to the Sierra Club, over 60 individual nuisance suits have been filed against this producer during the last 18 months.
1
State Regulations and Enforcement [S6] Enter state governments for the second wave of environmental accountability! Each state does something a little different, but most states in America have some type of odor regulation. Indirect regulations include permits, setbacks, operator training, and land application rules. Direct regulations involve an odor measurement of some kind. At least six states use dilution to threshold limits at the property line to regulate odor. They range from two to 7 D/T and are measured with a field olfactometer. A new field olfactometer introduced just three years ago is the Nasal Ranger™, which solves many of the problems associated with the Scentometer™. [S7] At least ten states use 30-min to 24-h averages of hydrogen sulfide as limits at the property line (Mahin, 2001). The 30-min limits range from 30 to 120 parts per billion (ppb). In Minnesota, the hydrogen sulfide limit of 50 ppb must not be exceeded more than twice a year and has been enforced around livestock operations since 1997. By contrast, Texas has limits of 80 and 120 ppb depending on land use. The Minnesota Air Pollution Agency collected data around a large swine facility with a lagoon and recorded 30-min averages over a period of five months. The facility was clearly out of compliance with numerous readings over 50 ppb including 14 readings over the analyzer’s upper range of 90 ppb. The producer has since installed a cover on the pond. [S8] * *In 1998, Colorado voters approved Amendment 14, requiring regulation of swine operations with over 364,000 kg of live weight. It requires facilities to obtain a permit, to install covers on lagoons, to adhere to setbacks and land application bans, and to implement odor control technologies and work practices (Sweeten, 2001). *North Carolina enforced a moratorium on new hog facilities since 1997 and implemented odor rules for confined animal farms in 2000. The rules require detailed best management plans for controlling odors. If objectionable odors persist, the state may require producers to install additional odor control. [S9] A Consent Decree in 1999 with Missouri required Premium Standard Farms to pay a $650,000 fine and spend up to $25,000,000 to investigate and implement “Next Generation” technologies that reduce odors and nutrients. To comply with this decree, PSF used *windbreak walls, *permeable covers, *aerobic polishing, *nitrogen reduction cells and *low-emission land application techniques such as *low-pressure irrigation and *subsurface injection. At the same time, Missouri removed the agricultural exemption to their 4 D/T property line limit for odor. [S10] Buckeye Egg Farm was a large commercial egg producer in Ohio that owned 12 million chickens in over 100 barns. They produced 4% of the nation’s eggs. *They were required in a state consent order to convert their conventional deep pit barns to belt batteries in five years. In July of last year, Ohio revoked Buckeye’s operating permits for its failure to comply with this requirement. In November, they were forced to depopulate and shut down one of their largest facilities.
2
*California has the most stringent air rules for agriculture. The agricultural exemption from air quality regulation in California was removed with recently passed legislation SB-700. The state requires or will require air permits for dust, ammonia and VOCs. The new permitting requirements and pollution control mandates will put a significant stress on their regulators and producers. Federal Regulations and Enforcement [S11] Now enter the federal government. *Under the authority of the U.S. Clean Air Act of 1990, the EPA joined citizen and state lawsuits. *Settlement of their first case with a livestock producer was announced in 2001 with Premium Standard Farms. Remember that Premium Standard Farms was already under a consent decree with the state of Missouri so they were hit with three waves of environmental accountability. The federal consent decree required long-term emission monitoring at one of their 163 lagoons and at two of their 1,100-hd mechanically-ventilated finishing barns. It required demonstration of soybean oil sprinkling for reducing barn dust emissions. The decree requires the producer to apply for any permits required by the Clean Air Act based on those measurements. *The second federal settlement was with Buckeye Egg Farm in Ohio. This was the first federal enforcement that addressed only air pollution. The federal consent decree was announced earlier this year (U.S. DOJ, 2004). Now, in addition to the requirements of the consent decree with Ohio, they must pay an $880,000 penalty and install environmental controls in the unconverted deep pit barns. The consent decree also requires long-term continuous testing of abatement methods. The dust abatement methods include an experimental particulate impaction system. The ammonia abatement methods include a new feed. Apparently overwhelmed with their third wave of environmental accountability, the German company finally sold all their facilities. The problem was that the egg producer failed to obtain their air permits. A facility becomes what EPA defines as a Major Stationary Source if it has the potential to emit 250 U.S. tons per year of any regulated air pollutant. For livestock sources, that means 250 tons per year of total suspended particulates or any size fraction such as PM10. Preliminary air emission tests indicated that total suspended particulate emissions at one of their facilities were over 700 tons/yr! The data showed that another one of their facilities could emit over 725,000 kg of ammonia per year or 4,400 lb/day. Compare the 4,400 lb/day with the reporting threshold of 100 lb/day. Later in this presentation, I will give you the results of 180 days of continuous measurements at a similar layer facility in Indiana. Academic Contributions to Government Policy [S12] *Regulations are often shaped by untimely political and societal pressures. They are often marked by excessive simplicity, unfairness, arbitrariness, and inaccuracy (Heber,
3
2001). However, scientific knowledge about emissions can and will influence the development and revision of regulations. For this reason, it is important for government to get the scientific community involved and fund research to improve the science. *To this end, the U.S. Government set up formalized discussions of air quality issues with direct input of University scientists. A prime example is the Agricultural Air Quality Task Force that was founded in 1997. It has officials from EPA, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), industry and universities. The committee reports directly to the Secretary of Agriculture about issues relating to the nexus between science and policy. This is done primarily through white papers. For example, Dr. John Sweeten at Texas A&M University led the development of a white paper on livestock odor in 2000 (Sweeten, et al. 2000). *Agricultural industry officials have complained that EPA’s emissions inventories for confined animal operations are inaccurate. Prompted by federal and state enforcement actions and encouraged by the Agricultural Task Force, the EPA asked the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) two years ago to conduct a study of air emission releases from animal feeding operations and to help determine the accuracy of EPA’s emissions inventory. This report was published last year (NRC, 2003). Recent Research Progress Measurement Strategies [S13] As you can see by the current social and political landscape in the U.S., there is a big need for scientific air emissions measurements at livestock facilities. However, are measurement technologies ready for this field research? Because if we need official standards to make them, then the answer is no, we are indeed not ready for such measurements. I believe the need to standardize air emission measurements will always remain critical until the standards are developed. Unfortunately, the time required for standards development is much longer than the urgency for the data will allow, so we must measure now, “ready or not”. However, we have looked beyond our U.S. boundaries to obtain ideas, and progress has been made towards consensus of certain measurement approaches. So let us look at some of the methods we used in various studies. [S14] Following the mobile lab method observed in Great Britain, we began setting up similar continuous emission monitoring equipment in 1994. Our experience during the last decade has shown that basic principles of industrial air pollution monitoring methods, EPA measurement standards, and quality control and quality assurance (QAQC) can improve data quality. *The methods study funded by the EPA in 2001 occurred serendipitously just prior to large-scale tests that utilized the same methods. These projects were the barn measurements related to the *federal consent decree in Missouri and *a six-state USDA emissions study. Immediately following this conference, we will begin barn monitoring *for the federal consent decree in Ohio. *Plans are in place for an
4
industry-funded national air emissions monitoring project involving six to ten universities to begin next summer. *Dr. Zhao at OSU and I received funding from the USDA to measure emissions from six layer barns starting in the fall of 2005. Manure Additive Tests [S15] In 1997, we completed a field test of a manure additive in eight commercial swine barns. *We measured hydrogen sulfide and ammonia back then because of their odor and air quality implications and because they could be measured continuously. In the mechanically ventilated deep-pit barns during the summer months*, the ammonia concentration ranged from two to 30 ppm*, hydrogen sulfide ranged from 20 to 1,450 ppb, and *carbon dioxide ranged from 600 to over 5,000 ppm. Unfortunately, for Monsanto, the product did not reduce odor or hydrogen sulfide and did not improve pig performance, and so they discontinued product development. [S16] We calculated a mean hydrogen sulfide emission rate of 0.87 g/d-AU from two of the untreated finishing barns in winter, compared to 6.3 g/d-AU from a finishing barn during 193 days of summer (Ni et al., 2001). Ammonia emissions from the barns ranged from 34 to 120 g/d-AU (Heber et al., 2000; Ni et al., 2000). Odor emissions averaged 75 OU/s-AU. [S17] *Four years ago, we turned to a more controlled laboratory setting to test 35 manure additives and found that* 20% of the products tested reduced hydrogen sulfide by 23 to 47%, and *20% of the products reduced ammonia by 3 to 15%. These reductions were certainly nothing to “write home about”. *And no products reduced odor, thus confirming other studies. We recently tested an additive for its effectiveness on swine, beef, and dairy manure and municipal sludge for an Indiana company. Indiana Tests at Layer Barns [S18] Microweighing technology using the tapered element oscillating microbalance (TEOM) allowed real-time measurements of highly varying dust concentrations (Heber et al., 2002b). In 2000, Purdue University bought a TEOM for measuring dust levels in swine and poultry barns. This instrument has been very effective in giving the dynamic patterns of PM2.5, PM10 and TSP emissions in every barn emission project we have conducted since then. We have five such units now and they are all collecting data now in Ohio. A small glass fiber filter is weighed continuously as particulate is deposited onto the filter. [S19] The next project focused on methods for measuring barn emissions. Borrowing heavily from previous studies, we developed techniques, methods, and protocols; refined and confirmed some old ideas; and pilot tested new ones as we measured air emissions from a layer barn for six months. This barn housed 250,000 hens!
5
Progress in Olfactometry [S20] Just four years ago, American olfactometry labs were not following any standard in terms of reference odorants for selecting panelists and verifying their performance. Today, however, nearly all the U.S. labs that evaluate agricultural odors follow the European olfactometry standard and we voluntarily required it in the six-state APECAB study (Jacobson et al., 2002). [S21] Our lab kept track of its n-butanol performance before and after self-imposing the European standard’s criteria. The repeatability and accuracy with n-butanol dramatically improved as observed with this plot of odor threshold concentrations over time. Last year, the American Society of Agricultural Engineers began developing a standard but until it is published, we will continue to follow the European standard to improve our measurements. [S22] Can we expand our odor evaluations beyond concentration? Determine also the intensity, hedonic tone, persistence and character and you paint a more complete picture of the human perception. For example, the pleasant smell of pretty flowers and the annoying smell of sewage may have the same dilutions to threshold or concentration, but obviously differ widely in hedonic tone. Some abatement methods like biofiltration and essential oils can improve hedonic tone without changing the concentration. [S23] The mean exhaust odor concentration at the layer barn was 316 OUE/m3. We observed values around 400 in colder weather and around 250 in warmer weather. The inlet odor averaged 51 OUE/m3. [S24] The mean odor emission rate was 66 OUE/s-AU. The fluctuations of odor emission can be explained by fluctuations in ventilation rate. The fluctuations in ventilation rate are due to the outside temperature, which is close to the temperature of incoming air. [S25] While the odor of ventilation air increased by an order of magnitude as air moved through the barn, the HT dropped about three points to the rank of five or halfway between no offensiveness and the worst smell ever experienced. This information about odor will help to determine odor setbacks. Progress of Continuous Emission Measurement Methods [S26] Now let us look at continuous measurements. There are two opposite approaches to measuring emissions for determining emission factors. The first is to conduct a survey of many farms with short-term data collection, perhaps a day or two per season. The second is to measure at only a few farms over five (5) to twenty-four (24) months. Guided by detailed quality control and quality assurance project plans, the long-term approach has been used in several federally funded projects in the last four years. [S27] Building emission measurements are calculated from *inlet concentrations, which are affected by both exhaust air reentry and external sources*, outlet concentrations, which are measured at a representative exhaust location among 4 to 75 fans, and *building airflow rate. Gas concentrations at various locations are usually monitored
6
sequentially and airflow is monitored continuously. Emission uncertainty is a function of errors in concentration and airflow, requiring accurate measurements of both variables*. Accurate measurements at barns are nontrivial, expensive, and time-consuming. [S28] Walk-in instrument shelters are essential to long-term monitoring studies because the space they provide is usually not available on the farm. They also protect equipment, and provide some convenience and comfort to the operators. Gas Sampling and Analysis [S29] The gas sampling system is very important to quality-assured gas emission measurements (Heber et al., 2002a). [S30] The heart of the gas sampling system is the Teflon-lined pump P2, which blows sampled air through an analyzer manifold. The analyzer pumps get their sub samples from manifold M3. Pump P2 draws air from a Teflon sampling manifold to which we connect up to 40 probes. Each probe has a 3-way computer-controlled Teflon solenoid so we can sequence the lines one by one every 10 minutes into the analyzer manifold M3. At the layer barn, we used nine probes for exhaust, one for ambient air, and two for the cages. The sampling probe includes a Teflon filter to protect the system from PM, water, and insects. Teflon tubes transfer sampled gas from the sampling probes to the solenoids. A bypass circuit pumps all non-sampled lines through manifold M1. Spot samples of odor and gas can be collected inside the shelter from any gas sampling location using a bag filling port downstream of the pump. A mass flow meter enables continuous monitoring of the sampling flow rate. It is not sensitive enough to detect slight leaks in the sampling system, but probe manifold pressure sensing is a magnificent troubleshooting tool. It is very sensitive and we have remotely detected leaks and plugging of lines many times. The beauty of this gas sampling system is that additional analyzers can be added to it. This facilitates add-on studies. We use chemiluminescence-based ammonia analyzers that first convert ammonia to nitric oxide. Hydrogen sulfide is converted to sulfur dioxide and analyzed using the pulsedfluorescence method. Carbon dioxide is measured with photoacoustic infrared. *We use standard gases to calibrate the analyzers. The calibration circuit includes a programmable diluter, a programmable solenoid manifold, and calibration tubes that deliver known concentrations to the probe manifold or the probes themselves.
7
Gas Monitoring Plans [S31] Now let us see where barn air is sampled. *If several fans operate as a group, but are too far apart for one fan to represent the others, then the sample representing the group consists of a mixture of sub samples from each fan. *On the other hand, a single fan in a bank of fans is sampled to represent the entire group of fans. [S32] This layer barn represents one extreme where 75 identical fans are distributed throughout the barn. The first stage runs continuously and consists of five fans, so we are measuring from four of them*, which then represents exhaust air flowing from other fans near them. [S33] The other extreme is seen with this tunnel ventilated swine finishing house where one continuous fan adequately represents the barn airflow because of its close proximity to the other fans. * The middle fan would run continuously even in the winter. Fan Airflow Rates [S34] Ventilation varies by at least an order of magnitude as seen in these records of daily mean airflow rates in swine finishing barns and layer barns. Fan airflow often results in systematic positive bias because it always demonstrates the law of entropy as it degrades with time in a barn. It is therefore important to determine the degradation factors. All fan airflow measurements are referenced to a fan test chamber that is designed and operated according to the standards of the Air Movement and Control Association. [S35] The most accurate method of measuring single speed fan airflow is to test some fans from the barn in a certified fan test facility, to transfer the fan test standard to the field with a calibrated portable fan test unit, and to monitor the fan airflows continuously using small vane anemometers. The key is to determine the actual fan curve and use it instead of the manufacturer’s published curve (Casey et al., 2002). [S36] Variable speed fans are difficult. However, the open impeller anemometer works well to accurately measure fan airflow. In our 1996 study, chimneys were installed to house full size impeller anemometers to measure pit fan airflows. Currently, we are using small propeller anemometers. Gas Emissions [S37] So now, with airflow rates we can calculate the gas emissions. At the layer barn, the mean exhaust hydrogen sulfide concentration was *only 24 ppb and the mean H2S emission rate was *only 375 grams per day. Since this is less than a pound per day and the reporting requirement is 100 lb per day, hydrogen sulfide emissions are not a problem for layers even with a facility consisting of a dozen such buildings.
8
[S38] The mean ammonia concentrations over 170 days were 3.4±0.2 ppm at the inlets, and 61±4.7 ppm in the exhaust air. The mean ammonia concentration in the cages over 82 *days late in the test was* 23±4.3 ppm. The ratio of cage to pit concentrations decreased from 59% in March to 36% in June. [S39] The average ammonia emission rate from the barn was* 387±25 kg/day (509±33 g/d-AU). The reporting requirement of 100 lb/day was exceeded by 8.5 times from just one barn. The ventilation rate from the layer barn increased from summer to winter and *averaged 0.60 L/s-bird. Dust Measurement and Layer barn Emissions [S40] Tests at the layer barn gave very good results. Two collocated sensors agreed “smack on” during the test at the layer barn in Indiana. TEOMs with PM10, PM2.5 and total suspended particulate (TSP) inlet heads in the layer barn provided information about the mass distribution of layer barn dust. They also revealed clear day and night differences that corresponded to bird activity. [S41] The daily means of PM10 concentration and emission rates were calculated for 29 days at the layer barn over a six-month period. The average daily mean PM10 concentration *was 567 µg/m3. The average daily mean PM10 emission rate from this barn was* 7.1±1.5 kg/day or 2.6 U.S. tons per year. It increased from winter to summer. Missouri Tests at Swine Houses [S42] The swine emission study was conducted in Missouri for the 2001 consent decree. In this study, we measured gases, odor and dust. In addition to the required oil sprinkling test., we tested misting of essential oils with and without water, and a biocurtain™. [S43] This data acquisition system allowed us to remotely inspect and back up data, receive automatic alarm notifications, and even calibrate gas analyzers. This was important since we were 720 km away from the site. [S44] A prior study was conducted at two small rooms of finishing pigs to study and compare emissions from the rooms with various manure collection strategies. This burst of hydrogen sulfide during flushing with lagoon effluent was discovered and we wondered whether we would observe the same thing in the large flushed barns in Missouri. [S45] Well, we did. Hydrogen sulfide rose from 100 ppb to sometimes 1000 ppb. Methane rose from 10 ppm to sometimes 50 ppm, or higher. We also noticed a sharp increase in odor emissions. Therefore, the barn was an off gassing facility for the lagoon! It is always important in these studies to monitor the processes that cause or abate emissions. Therefore, in addition to monitoring flushing, which strongly correlated with H2S and CH4, we monitored pig activity, which is strongly correlated with dust.
9
[S46] So how did sprinkling five cubic centimeters of soybean oil per square meter of floor work? It worked pretty well since both PM10 and total suspended particulate in the sprinkled barn were over 65% less than the control barn. And we only covered 1/3 of the floor with the oil in the first trial. [S47] Results of the 11-month test showed that whereas soybean oil could reduce dust emissions, essential oil misting had no effect. In each case, we adjusted the treatment method. [S48] The biocurtain, which has been installed on at least 200 barns by the manufacturer, was tested in Missouri this past summer. Although we could see a visible deposit on the curtain, the data indicated no difference between incoming and outgoing dust concentrations. We got the same results testing the biocurtain at a layer barn. [S49] Over a period of 180 days and nearly two groups of pigs, the average exhaust hydrogen sulfide concentration was 133 ppb as compared with 5 ppb outside the barn. Remember the layer barn had only 24 ppb at the exhaust. [S50] The average hydrogen sulfide emission rate was 1.6 mg/s, but the maximum was 6.9 mg/s. Based on the maximum emission rate, the reporting threshold of 100 lb/day is reached with 76,000 pigs. Now what farms would have 76,000 pigs at one facility? [S51] Here is an aerial shot of 72 barns containing 79,200 pigs and we are looking at only about half the site. When we include lagoon emissions, we find that smaller sites need to report hydrogen sulfide emissions. However, most pork production facilities in the U.S. will be underneath the threshold. [S52] What about ammonia? Well, the ammonia concentrations at the exhaust averaged 17 ppm as compared with the ambient concentrations of 0.4 ppm over 180 days. [S53] The average ammonia emission rate was 77 mg/s and the maximum daily mean was 155 mg/s. According to this data, 3,450 pigs would trigger the ammonia-reporting threshold of 100 lb per day. Typical swine finishing sites have 4,000 to 9,000 pigs. Six-State Barn Air Emission Study [S54] Two years ago, six universities joined forces to conduct a very comprehensive building emission measurement campaign, called the APECAB project. We are currently winding down 15 months of continuous measurements at a total of 12 buildings, four pairs of swine barns and two pairs of poultry houses. At the same time, the Missouri study was going on as a separate project. New Emission Research Projects [S55] In early 2004, the USDA announced $5.1 million given to 11 institutions to study the impact of air quality resulting from farm animal operations, greenhouse gases,
10
emissions from post-harvest practices, and improved methods for measuring gases in the atmosphere. Universities competed for another $5 million round of air quality grants last summer. Proposed Compliance Agreement [S56] Currently, it appears that the livestock industries, in a historic and innovative compliance agreement with the U.S., will agree to collect air emission data in exchange for temporary protection from further government lawsuits and forgiveness of past offenses. That means that if a producer has been emitting more than 45 kg/day of ammonia or hydrogen sulfide without reporting it or they failed to get an air permit when they should have done so, their slate will be wiped clean. First they have to sign up and pay for the project. Never before has this type of a compliance solution been drawn up for an entire industry like this, according to the director of EPA enforcement. [S57] If approved, the national emission-monitoring project associated with this agreement will begin this winter. Quality-assured air emission data will be collected from representative swine, layer, dairy, broiler, and turkey farms. The data will allow emissions to be determined for both barns and outdoor manure storage and treatment facilities. At the barns, we will use continuous monitoring and extractive sampling from on-farm instrument shelters, and open-path micrometeorological methods at the outdoor manure facilities and lagoons. [S58] The study will be comprehensive both in terms of the number of pollutants and number of sources measured but also in terms of the methods used to measure these pollutants. We will use methods already used by Purdue and other universities but we will also measure VOCs. [S59] We will measure process variables so that we can better explain the emissions, [S60] The lagoons, an area source, will be measured using micromet techniques, specifically we will use two scanning FTIR systems and two UVDOAS systems. We will use computed tomography with the FTIR scans and backward Lagrangian stochastic models with the UV signals. [S61] This schematic shows the FTIR systems around the lagoon. Retroreflectors are mounted to towers and the ground. The scanners move the FTIR from one retroreflector to another. We plan to move from one lagoon to the next every two weeks. [S62] One of our labs is currently measuring air emissions from a 168,000-hen layer barn. This layer barn has belts that remove the manure from the house rather than storing it for one year. [S63] The other lab is measuring air emissions from two, 170,000-hen layer barns. These layer barns have long-term manure storage. We are testing a particulate impaction system to remove the dust and a modified feed to remove ammonia.
11
[S64] We are using the same gas sampling system that I described for the other projects. [S65-72] The data acquisition system will be checked remotely every day over the internet. These slides show screen shots of Lab 1 observed from my office on campus the other day. Summary [S73] In summary then, the first four years of the 21st Century has seen major moves toward more strict environmental regulation of the U.S. livestock industry as the public has become more and more restless concerning megafarms. California is leading the way towards more stringent state regulations followed by Missouri, North Carolina, Ohio, Minnesota, Texas and Iowa. The federal government has become intimately involved and recently settled two cases with major pork and egg producers. In response to all this, an innovative compliance agreement with the livestock industries has been proposed in which they would agree to long-term measurements at their facilities. That has put the pressure on us as air quality researchers. Until measurement standards are published to develop the tools and methods to obtain reliable data, we will use consensus protocols applied in recent and current studies. Many publications will soon be written about the nearly 200 barn-months of continuous emission data obtained during the last two years.* References Lee, J. D. 2004. “More hog lot disputes are ending up in court.” Des Moines Register. March 23. Casey, K.D., Wheeler, E.F., R.S. Gates, H. Xin, P.A. Topper, J. Zajaczkowski, Y. Liang, A.J. Heber, and L.D. Jacobson. 2002. Quality assured measurements of animal building emissions: Part 4. Airflow. Symposium on Air Quality Measurement Methods and Technology, San Francisco, CA: Nov. 13-25, AWMA: Pittsburgh, PA. Heber, A.J. and V.R. Phillips. 2001. Abatement of Livestock Air and Water Pollution, Workshop on Air Quality. Univ. of Hanover, Hanover, Germany, Sep 28-29, 2000. Heber, A.J., J.-Q. Ni, T.-T. Lim, C.A. Diehl, A.L. Sutton, R.K. Duggirala, B.L. Haymore, D.T. Kelly, and V.A. Adamchuk. 2000. Effect of a manure additive on ammonia emission from swine finishing buildings. Trans. ASAE 43(6):1895-1902. Heber, A.J., J.-Q. Ni, T.-T. Lim, P.C. Tao, A.M. Millmier, L.D. Jacobson, R.E. Nicolai, J. A. Koziel, S.J. Hoff, Y. Zhang, D.B. Beasley. 2002a. Quality assured measurements of animal building emissions: Part 1. Gas concentrations. Symp. on Air Quality Measurement Methods and Technology, San Francisco, CA: Nov. 13-25, AWMA: Pittsburgh, PA. Heber, A.J., T.-T. Lim; J.Z. Gallien; J.-Q. Ni; P.C. Tao, A.M. Millmier, L.D. Jacobson, J. A. Koziel, S.J. Hoff, Y. Zhang, and G.B. Baughman. 2002b. Quality assured measurements of animal building emissions: Part 2. Particulate matter concentrations.
12
Symposium on Air Quality Measurement Methods and Technology, San Francisco, CA: Nov. 13-25, AWMA: Pittsburgh, PA. Jacobson, L.D. et al. 1999. Literature Review for Air Quality and Odor. Topic IIIH of Generic Environmental Impact Statement, MN Environ. Quality Board, June 22. Jacobson, L.D., R.E. Nicolai, A.J. Heber; J.-Q. Ni; T.-T. Lim, J. A. Koziel, S.J. Hoff, Y. Zhang, and D.B. Beasley. 2002. Quality assured measurements of animal building emissions: Part 3. Odor concentrations. Symposium on Air Quality Measurement Methods and Technology, San Francisco, CA: Nov. 13-25, AWMA: Pittsburgh, PA. Redwine, J. and R. Lacey. 2000. A summary of state odor regulations pertaining to confined animal feeding operations. Second Int. Conf. on Air Pollution from Agricultural Operations, Des Moines, IA, October 9-11, ASAE, St. Joseph, MI 49085-9659. Mahin, T.D. 2001. Comparison of different approaches used to regulate odors around the world. Water Science and Technology 44(9):87-102. Miner, J.R. 1995. A review of the literature on the nature and control of odors from pork production facilities. National Pork Producers Council, September 1. Miner, J.R. 1997. Nuisance concerns and odor control. J. Dairy Science 80:2667-2672. Ni, J.-Q. A.J. Heber, T.-T. Lim, C.A. Diehl, R.K. Duggirala, B.L. Haymore, and A.L. Sutton. 2000. Ammonia emissions from a large mechanically-ventilated swine building during warm weather. J. Environmental Quality 29(3):752-758. NRC. 2003. Air Emissions from Animal Feeding Operations: Current Knowledge, Future Needs. National Research Council, The National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. PSF. 2000. Environmental Work Plan. Premium Standard Farms, Inc., March 24. [http://www.psfarms.com/work_plan.html] Sweeten, J.M., L. Erickson, P. Woodford, C.B. Parnell, K. Thu, T. Coleman, R. Flocchini, C. Reeder, J.R. Master, W. Hambleton, G. Bluhm, and D. Tristao. 2000b. Air Quality Research and Technology Transfer White Paper and Recommendations for Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations. Confined Livestock Air Quality Committee, USDA Agricultural Air Quality Task Force, Washington, D.C., July 19, 123 p. Sweeten, J.M., L.D. Jacobson, A.J. Heber, D.R. Schmidt, J.C. Lorimor, P.W. Westerman, J.R. Miner, R.H. Zhang, C.M. Williams, and B.W. Auvermann. 2001. Odor Mitigation for Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations: White Paper and Recommendations. National Center for Manure and Animal Waste Management, NCSU, Raleigh, NC. 54 p. USDA. 2000. Air Quality Research and Technology Transfer White Paper and Recommendations for Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations. Report by Confined Livestock Air Quality Subcommittee of the USDA Agricultural Air Quality Task Force, Washington, D.C., July 19. 13
Vansickle, J. 2003. Nuisance Lawsuits on the Rise. National Hog Farmer, March 15. U.S. DOJ. 2004. “Ohio’s Largest Egg Producer Agrees to Dramatic Air Pollution Reductions from Three Giant Facilities”. United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., February 23 [www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2004/February/04_enrd_105.htm].
U.S. DOJ. 2001. “Nation’s Second Largest Hog Producer Reaches Settlement with U.S. & Citizen’s Group”. United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., Nov. 20.
14
