UNITED SOYBEAN BOARD
Environmental Audit
Presentation Overview
•
•
•
•
•
•
Background
The CAFO Rule
Federal Air Quality Requirements
State Regulatory Comparisons
Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDLs)
Compliance Costs and Assistance
Programs
Environmental Audit
BACKGROUND
Environmental Concerns from Livestock
Operations
• Water Quality
– Sources
• Manure runoff
• Lagoon failures
– Pollutants
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Nutrients (N, P)
Pathogens
Organic matter
Metals
Salts
Hormones
Antibiotics
• Air Quality
– Dust
– Odors and Other
Emissions
• Hydrogen Sulfide (H2S)
• Ammonia
• Methane
Why the Environmental Focus?
• I990’s: The “Perfect Storm”
– Changing Livestock Industry
• Consolidation
– Impacts from Nutrients
• In Central US watersheds, manure contributes
– 37% N
– 65% P
• Historic over-application of P
– Urbanization (odors)
Proportions of Non-Point Nitrogen Sources
in Selected Watersheds
Palouse River ,
WA
Platte River,
NE
Red River of
the North,
MN, ND
Fox River,
WI
White River,
IN
Source: Puckett, 1994 (USGS)
Susquehanna
River, PA
Willamette River ,
OR
Potomac River, D C
Snake River ,
ID
Tar River, NC
San Joaquin
River, CA
EXPLAN ATION
Nitrogen source
Atmosphere
Fertilizer
Manure
Point sources
Connecticut River , CT
Altamaha River, GA
South Platte
River, CO
Apalachicola River, FL
Trinity River,
TX
White River,
AR
Source: Puckett, 1994
(USGS)
Percentage of Soil Samples with High Soil
Test P
Source: Fixen and Roberts, 2000
60
22
59
55
22
48
53
31
42
42
53
38
Percent of samples
testing high or above
<25%
25 – 50%
>50%
54
58
40
42
41
41
64
47
55
31
66
53
40
21
84
75
85
82
78
69
40
63
42
62
74
61
41
43
76
30
79
39
54
49
North American average of 47% soils testing medium
or below for P
Nutrient Concerns
• Nitrogen
– Leaching to groundwater
– Primary concern is health
• Drinking water standard of 10 mg/L
• Phosphorus
– Transport to surface
water
– Primary concern is
eutrophication
Environmental Audit
THE CAFO RULE
The Road to Regulation
USDA/USEPA Unified
National AFO Strategy
CAFOs defined as
“point sources”
2003 Revised
CAFO Rule
Issued
Clean Water
Action Plan
2008 Revised
CAFO Rule
Issued
“Original”
CAFO Rule
1972 1974
1Waterkeeper
1998
2000
2012 Final
CAFO Rule
Issued
2002 2004 2006 2008 2010
2012
Court Ruling1
Court Ruling2
Alliance et al. v. EPA (2nd Circuit Court), 2005
2National Pork Producers Council v. EPA (5th Circuit Court), 2011
A CAFO is….
• An Animal Feeding Operation (AFO) that…
– Confines animals for 45 days in 12 months
– Sustains no vegetation in confinement area
• … and meets the following criteria:
– Large
• Based on number of animals; varies by animal type
– Medium
• Stream running through confinement area
• Man-made conveyance to surface water
– Small
• Same qualitative criteria as medium
• Determined to be a significant contributor of pollutants to
surface waters (“designated”)
CAFO Size Thresholds
Animal Type
Large
CAFO
Medium CAFO
Mature Dairy Cows (milked or dry)
> 700
200 - 699
Veal Calves
> 1,000
300 - 999
Cattle (other than mature dairy cows or veal calves)
> 1,000
300 – 999
Swine ( > 55 pounds)
> 2,500
750 – 2,499
Swine (< 55 pounds)
> 10,000
3,000 – 9,999
Turkeys
> 55,000
16,500 – 54,999
Laying Hens or Broilers (liquid manure handling
> 30,000
9,000 – 29,999
systems)
Chickens (other than laying hens & other than liquid
> 125,000
37,500 – 124,999
Laying Hens (other than liquid manure handling
> 82,000
25,000 – 81,999
systems)
Animal Unit (old terminology)
>1,000
300-1,000
manure handling systems)
Major Elements of CAFO Rule*
•
“Duty to Apply” for an NPDES
permit
– Only required if an actual
discharge occurs
• Effluent Limitation Guidelines
– No discharge unless rainfall from
greater than specified storm events
(large CAFOs)
– Best Management Practices
* Including 2003, 2008, and 2012 revisions
Major Elements of CAFO Rule (cont’d)*
• Nutrient Management Plan (NMP) required
–
–
–
–
All CAFOs must implement
Keep onsite
Must be submitted to regulators
Terms of the NMP are incorporated into the permit
• Annual report required
• Can be implemented through
general or individual permits
* Including 2003, 2008, and 2012 revisions
Driver for 2008 CAFO Rule Revisions
Waterkeeper vs. USEPA (2nd Circuit Court),
2005
NMPs are
effluent
limitations and
so must be:
• reviewed by
permitting authority
• included in NPDES
permits
• subject to public
hearing process
USEPA can
regulate only
actual
discharges, not
potential
discharges
USEPA to
investigate
pathogens
Driver for 2012 CAFO Rule Revisions
National Pork Producers Council vs. USEPA
(5th Circuit Court), 2011
Vacated CAFO “duty
Removed voluntary
to apply” provisions
certification option for
for proposed
unpermitted CAFOs
discharges
Emerging Issues and Initiatives
• Manure classification
– Some say manure classified as hazardous waste under
current “Superfund” law
– Congress continues to seek exemption under
“Superfund Common Sense Act”
• Endocrine disruptors
– USEPA Multi-Year Plan (2007) focus:
• Tools to evaluate CAFOs as source of environmental
estrogens
• Evaluate occurrence and potential risks of
endocrine-disrupting chemicals in CAFO discharges
Environmental Audit
FEDERAL AIR QUALITY REQUIREMENTS
Federal Air Quality Regulations
• Regulations:
– Clean Air Act
– Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA)
– Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-know
Act (EPCRA)
– Greenhouse Gas Reporting
Rule
• Together, address:
–
–
–
–
Particulates (dust)
Nitrogen Oxides (NOx)
Hydrogen Sulfide (H2S)
Ammonia (NH3)
CERCLA/EPCRA Requirements
• Historically, EPCRA and CERCLA required AFOs to
report emissions >100 lbs in in 24-hour period of NH3
and H2S:
• December 2008: EPCRA/CERCLA revisions:
– Exempted small AFOs from reporting at all under EPCRA
• Large CAFOs must still report if emissions trigger thresholds
– Exempted all AFOs from reporting under CERCLA
– Changes challenged by environmental groups and
livestock associations
• October 2010: Court remanded rule to USEPA for
reconsideration/modification
– New or revised rule expected in 2012
Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule (40 CFR Part
98.360)
• Effective December 2009
• AFOs required to report if they emit > 25,000 metric tons
carbon dioxide (CO2) equivalents
• Manure management (Subpart JJ) requirements not yet
enforced because of Congressional restriction
– The FY 2013 House Subcommittee Report Section 421 continues
a provision prohibiting the expenditure of funds for enforcement
• Will only affect only very large operations
Enforcement of Federal Air Regulations for CAFOs
• Difficulties in implementing air regulations
– No consensus on emission factors to use
– Would need to measure emissions at each facility to
determine which operations might meet
thresholds/triggers
• National Air Emissions Monitoring Study (NAEMS)
initiated to provide foundation for emission
estimate methodologies
– $4.6 M program
– Funding from livestock producer associations
National Air Emissions Monitoring Study
(NAEMS)
• Objectives:
– Accurately assess emissions from livestock operations
– Compile a database for estimating emission rates
– Promote a national consensus for emission
estimation methods and procedures
• 2.5 year program
– Data collection completed in 2011
NAEMS Facilities
Source: Purdue University, NAEMS website
National Air Emissions Monitory Summary
(NAEMS) Results
• Extensive data collection of air emissions at animal
farms
• Few summary documents to date
• Study criticized
– Not enough facilities monitored to represent different
types of farms and manure handling practices
– Mitigation techniques were not investigated
• USEPA says additional data will supplement study
• USEPA published draft emission-estimating
methodologies in March 2012:
– dairy/swine lagoons
– broiler operations
• Additional methodologies expected
Air Quality Expected to be an Increasing
Focus
• Enforcement
– New emissions estimating models will facilitate
– GHG monitoring
– Expected to impact mostly large facilities
• Ammonia regulations
– States allowed to regulate NH3 emissions from
agricultural operations to meet NAAQS for PM2.5
– Development of secondary NAAQS for NH3
recommended
Environmental Audit
STATE REGULATORY COMPARISONS
Implementation of Federal CAFO Rule
State-based Air Quality Regulations
• Generally different focus than federal rule
• Qualitative
– “Nuisance” prohibitions
– Odor management plans
• Quantitative
– H2S, Total Reduced Sulfur (TRS) limits
• Concentration as ppb or ppm
– Odor limits
• Detection-to-threshold, D/T
• Odor concentration units (o.u.)
Odor Standards
States with Sulfur Compound and Odor Standards
State
Sulfur Compound Concentration
2 Dilutions-to-Threshold (D/T) at
receptor, 7 D/T at property line
Colorado
Kentucky
Iowa
7 D/T
30 ppb H2S
8 to 24 D/T depending upon property
use (i.e., residential, industrial, etc.)
Illinois
Minnesota
30 ppb H2S (30 min. avg., detected twice in 5
days; 50 ppb H2S (30 min. avg. detected twice
per year)
Missouri
0.05 ppm (30 min. avg. detected twice per
year)
Nebraska
10 ppm TRS (1) max 1 minute avg; 0.10 ppm
TRS max 30 minute rolling avg.
North Dakota
North Carolina
Wyoming
Odor Limit
5.4 D/T (field measurement), 7 D/T
violation (lab measurement)
7 Odor Units
For new or modified swine facilities: 7
D/T at property line or max n-butanol
concentration is 225 ppm
7 D/T at property line
H2S = hydrogen sulfide
TRS = total reduced sulfur (includes H2S)
D/T = dilutions-to-threshold (number of dilutions needed to make odor undetectable)
Odor Control Requirements for CAFOs
Other Control Mechanisms
• Public health/nuisance ordinances
• Moratoria
• Legal action
– Nuisance-based
• “home rule” vs. “right to farm”
– Water-quality-based
– Instigated by private and public entities
• Agreements/settlements
– $15M Smithfield Foods (NC)
– $3M Seaboard (OK)
– $1M Premium Standard Farms (MO)
Example of Local Control Variability:
Missouri Ordinances & Zoning
County Health Ordinance
County Zoning Ordinance
Township Zoning and Planning
Township Zoning and Planning and County Health Ordinance
County Health Ordinance Passed By County Health Board
But Challenged by County Commission
Source: http://nmplanner.missouri.edu/regulations/mocountyrules/
Local Controls on AFOs
Trends to Watch
• Move to agricultural agency as lead for CAFO
environmental programs
• Focus on climate change
– Voluntary greenhouse gas emission reductions
– Carbon credits/trading
– Programs
• USEPA AgStar
• Nutrient trading
Environmental Audit
TMDLS
TMDL Overview
• Regulatory program under the Clean Water Act to
address impaired waters
• Impaired water: Water quality in receiving water
does not meet a water quality objective
– Numeric standards for certain pollutants (e.g.
coliform bacteria)
– Narrative (toxic to aquatic organisms)
• Impairments are water body and pollutant specific
• Federal mandate for states to develop numeric
nutrient criteria
– May increase stringency of CAFO permits
TMDL Process
WLA – wasteload allocation
LA – load allocation
MOS – margin of safety
TMDLS and CAFOs
• Pathogens and nutrient impairments are primary
concerns for CAFOs and TMDLs
• Best Management Practices (BMPs) can be used to
reduce pollution from CAFOs
TMDL Case Study
• North Bosque River, Texas
– Phosphorus (P) loadings caused
excessive algal growth
– Primary sources
• Wastewater Treatment Facilities
(WWTFs)
• AFOs and CAFOs
– 2001 TMDL Action items:
• New and amended permits for
WWTFs and CAFOs
• Revised rules for CAFOs
• BMP implementation for AFOs/CAFOs
• Education/outreach
• Environmental monitoring
• Compliance enforcement
– By 2006, watershed met goal of over
50% in average P reductions
Nutrient Criteria
• Nutrient pollution is leading cause of water quality
impairments in the US
• USEPA has identified animal agriculture as a
significant source of nutrient pollution
• USEPA requires nutrient criteria development for:
–
–
–
–
Rivers/streams
Lakes/reservoirs
Estuaries/coastal waters
Wetlands in some cases
• Criteria to evaluate nutrients may include
phosphorus, nitrogen, Secchi depth, chlorophyll a
Nutrient Criteria Implementation Status
Gulf of Mexico Hypoxia Task Force
• Partnership between
state and federal
agencies, including
USEPA and USDA
• Established in 1997 with
goal to reduce size,
severity and duration
of hypoxia zone
• Watershed based task
force, not currently a
TMDL driven process
Map taken from Task Force 2011 Annual Report
Chesapeake Bay TMDL
• Establishes in 2010 a
pollutant reduction plan
for N, P and sediment
• States submit watershed
plans to address required
load reductions
• Milestones for control
measures:
– By 2017: 60% required
measures implemented
– 2025: All measures
implemented
Environmental Audit
COMPLIANCE COSTS AND ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS
Number of Operations vs. Cost of Compliance
Distribution of No. of CAFO Operations verses
Distribution of CAFO Compliance Costs by Sector
100
90
80
Broilers 2,204
Broilers $20.5
Hogs $34.8
Percentage
70
60
Hogs 5,461
Dairy $151.1
50
40
30
Dairy 3,429
20
10
0
Cattle $88.2
Turkeys
Layers - Wet
Layers - Dry
Broilers
Hogs
Dairy
Veal
Heifers
Cattle
Cattle 1,955
No. Potential Operations Defined
or Designated as CAFOs by
Industry (1997)
Estimated Industry-wide Compliance
Costs by CAFO Sector ($2001, millions,
Pre-tax)
Compliance Costs vs. Operation Size
Distribution of Estimated Industry-wide Compliance Costs by
CAFO Sector and CAFO Size Category (2001 Dollars, Millions, Pre-tax)
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Cattle Heifers
<300 AU (designated) $0.5
$0.0
$0.1
300 -1000 AU $1.9
>1000 AU $85.8
$0.1
Veal
$0.1
$2.4
$3.8
Dairy
$0.9
$22.0
$128.2
Hogs Broilers
$0.4
$1.3
$9.5
$2.4
$24.9 $16.8
CAFO Sector
Layers - Layers - Turkeys
Dry
Wet
$0.2
$0.1
$0.3
$0.1
$0.5
$0.3
$7.2
$8.4
$8.1
Per Facility Compliance Costs for New
CAFO Rule
Annual Pre-tax 2001 Dollars
Cattle
Heifers
Veal
Dairy
Hogs
Broilers
Layers - Dry
Layers - Wet
Turkeys
Average Across
All Sectors
May not add due to rounding
>1000 AU
$48,584
$413
$316,667
$88,414
$6,346
$10,294
$9,877
$21,932
$20,876
300 -1000 AU
$10,920
$435
$342,857
$11,288
$6,397
$4,615
$3,846
$20,833
$8,108
<300 AU
(designated)
$33,333
$0
$33,333
$30,000
$7,692
$25,000
$100,000
$12,500
$30,000
$26,905
$8,783
$22,093
Total
$45,115
$424
$286,364
$44,065
$6,372
$9,301
$9,908
$21,687
$20,000
$21,525
Assistance Programs
• USDA-NRCS Environmental Quality Incentives
Program
– Payments 1997-2002: $107M
– Payments 2011: $865M
– Farm BIll expired October 2012 for first time since 1950’s,
but EQIP funding extended to 2014
•
•
•
•
Section 319 Non-point Source Program
FSA Farm Ownership and Operating Loans
SBA Pollution Control Loans
AgSTAR
– Promotes use of methane generation and capture
technologies at livestock facilities
• Other national and state-based programs available
EQIP: Fiscal Year 2011 Allocations to States
AgSTAR Anaerobic Digester Projects 20002011
Conclusion
• Implementation of federal 2012 CAFO Rule
– Varied status across country, especially due to recent
2011 ruling National Pork Producers Council v. USEPA.
• Air Quality Regulations
– States have shown increased regulatory focus on odor
management
– Potential increased enforcement of federal regulations
pending development of emission estimating models
• General
– Increased focus on endocrine disruptors
– Possible “slow trend” to agricultural agency oversight
– Focus on greenhouse gases
– Possible trends away from County/local controls
Questions?
Photos Courtesy NRCS Photo Gallery
Art by Scott Patton, NRCS