Ammonia and Particulate matter emissions from animal feeding operations

Pius NdegwaNutrient Management & Air Quality

Specialist

Biological Systems EngineeringWashington State University

Outline

1. Background

2. EPA-Industry collaboration: Birth of NAEMS

3. After NAEMS?

4. Outreach Programs and Activities

Background

• Prior to year 2000, EPA was mainly concerned on the impact of animal feeding operations (AFOs) on water – comprehensive nutrient managements.

• In 2000, pressure from citizens and environmental groups forced EPA to start enforcing two federal air quality laws in AFOs for select pollutants including: PM10 & PM2.5, non-methane VOCs, H2S, and NH3.

• PM10 & PM2.5 and non-methane VOCs emissions as criteria air pollutants are enforced under the U.S. Clean Air Act (CAA) of 1990.

Background

• Notification requirements for certain quantities of NH3 and H2S emissions enforceable under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) and the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA).

Background: Criteria pollutants

• The six “criteria pollutants” potentially harmful to

human health currently regulated (by EPA) under

the Clean Air Act are:

• Sulfur Dioxide - SO2

• Nitrogen Dioxide - NO2

• Ozone (important: precursors - VOCs & NOx)

• Particulate matter: PM10; PM2.5

• Carbon Monoxide (CO)• Lead

National Ambient Air Quality Standards  Primary Standards Secondary Standards

Pollutant Level Averaging Time Level Averaging Time

Carbon Monoxide

9 ppm (10 mg/m3)

8-hour None

35 ppm (40 mg/m3)

1-hour

Lead 1.5 µg/m3 Quarterly Average Same as Primary

Nitrogen Dioxide

0.053 ppm (100 µg/m3)

Annual (Arithmetic Mean)

Same as Primary

Particulate Matter (PM10)

150 µg/m3 24-hour Same as Primary

Particulate Matter (PM2.5)

15.0 µg/m3 Annual (Arithmetic Mean) Same as Primary

35 µg/m3 24-hour Same as Primary

Ozone 0.075 ppm (2008 std) 8-hour Same as Primary

0.08 ppm (1997 std) 8-hour Same as Primary

0.12 ppm 1-hour (Applies only in limited areas)

Same as Primary

Sulfur Dioxide

0.03 ppm Annual (Arithmetic Mean)

0.5 ppm (1300 µg/m3)

3-hour

0.14 ppm 24-hour

Other EPA Legislations for Air Quality relevant to AFOs

• CERCLA (1980) – Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act.

• EPCRA (1986) – Emergency Planning and Community Right-To-Know Act.

• Currently: H2S and NH3 emissions of > 100 lb/day must be reported!

Background

• However, the EPA found it difficult to determine which AFOs are in violation of these regulations because of the lack of reliable science based emissions data.

• In addition, there was considerable concern within the agricultural community, who contended that the current emission estimates for AFOs were based on data from studies that were outdated or did not represent modern livestock practices.

• A National Research Council panel commissioned by National Academy of Sciences for EPA to assess the state-of-science arrived at similar conclusions and recommended that EPA improve its methods of estimating emissions from AFOs (National Research Council, 2003).

NRC (2003) Evaluation of the Potential Importance of AFO Emissions at Different Spatial Scales

Emissions

Global, National, & Regional

Local: Property Line or Nearest Dwelling

Primary Effects of Concern

NH3 Major Minor Atmospheric deposition, haze

N2O Significant Insignificant Global climate changeNOx Significant Minor Haze, atmospheric deposition,

smogCH4 Significant Insignificant Global climate changeVOCs Insignificant Minor Quality of human life

H2S Insignificant Significant Quality of human life

PM10 Insignificant Significant Haze

PM2.5 Insignificant Significant Health, haze

Odor Insignificant Major Quality of human life

Background

• Emission data is:• Scarce• Highly variable Lack of representative credible data!

• For some type of operations, credible measurements protocols and methodologies need to be developed.• Mechanical ventilated barns (well developed and

straightforward methods)• Naturally ventilated barns - almost no data

exist.

EPA-Industry collaboration: NAEMS

• In response to the NRC recommendations and the AFOs concerns, in January 2005, EPA developed Air Quality Compliance Agreement (Consent Agreement).

• Producers would fund a national study to determine who was in violation and would be required to comply with legislation based on this study.

• This Consent Agreement would protect producers from enforcement prior to or while research is being conducted (only those who signed the consent agreement though).

EPA-Industry collaboration: NAEMS

• Under the Consent Agreement (Jan. 2005) A National Air Emissions Monitoring Study (NAEMS) will be conducted:• To collect credible emission data (NH3, H2S, VOCs,

PM2.5 & PM10 ),

• Analyze the monitoring results, and• Create tools (tables and models) to be used for

determining emissions.

• Goal: to determine if an AFO emits pollutants at a level which requires them to apply for permits under the CAA, or submit notifications under CERCLA or EPCRA

EPA-Industry collaboration: NAEMS

Heber, 2008

EPA-Industry collaboration: NAEMS

• In this study, the same instrumentation, protocols, and quality assurance and quality control methods are applied to all species.

• Study is being conducted in different climatic or geographic areas to reflect different production systems.

• Current Status: NAEMS is in its second year. We have four sites in the West: two dairies (WA and CA), Two poultry (both in CA).

Washington NAEMS site: Aerial photo of the site

Milking Parlors

Barns

Primary Ponds

Separator and settling basins

Secondary Pond

Sick Bay

Research barns

Washington NAEMS site: Barn Description

Open WallsFeed Alley and Open Ridge

Washington NAEMS site: On-site instrument shelter

Heated racewayShelter

Washington NAEMS site: Monitored barns

Barn 2 (31 m x 183 m)

Ultrasonic Anemometer

OFIS

1

1

7 7 7

10

10

6

6

9 9 9

8 8 8

5

5

N

Static pressure port

RH/Temp probe

PM MonitorActivity sensor

Thermocouple

Air sampling Wind sensor Heated raceway

Solar sensorS

OFIS

Barn 4(39 m x 213 m)

S

7

8

9

2 2 22

3 3 33

4 4 44

Barn 2 (31 m x 183 m)

Ultrasonic Anemometer

OFIS

1

1

7 7 7

10

10

6

6

9 9 9

8 8 8

5

5

N

Static pressure port

RH/Temp probe

PM MonitorActivity sensor

Thermocouple

Air sampling Wind sensor Heated raceway

Solar sensorS

OFIS

Static pressure port

RH/Temp probe

PM MonitorActivity sensor

Thermocouple

Air sampling Wind sensor Heated raceway

Solar sensorS

OFIS

Barn 4(39 m x 213 m)

S

7

8

9

2 2 22

3 3 33

4 4 44

600 cows

800 cows

Side and end view of one of the barn

S

Lower Curtain

Upper Curtain

Roof

Eave Opening

Open Ridge

RH/Temp probe TEOM

Activity sensor Thermocouple Air samplingSolar sensorS

Wind sensorUltrasonic Anemometer

S

Lower Curtain

Upper Curtain

Roof

Eave Opening

Open Ridge

RH/Temp probe TEOM

Activity sensor Thermocouple Air samplingSolar sensorS

Wind sensorUltrasonic Anemometer RH/Temp probe TEOM

Activity sensor Thermocouple Air samplingSolar sensorS

Wind sensorUltrasonic Anemometer

S

RH/Temp probe PM10, continuous

TSP, gravimetric

PM2.5, gravimetric

Activity sensor Thermocouple Air samplingSolar sensorS

Wind sensorUltrasonic Anemometer

S

RH/Temp probe PM10, continuous

TSP, gravimetric

PM2.5, gravimetric

Activity sensor Thermocouple Air samplingSolar sensorS

Wind sensorUltrasonic Anemometer RH/Temp probe PM10, continuous

TSP, gravimetric

PM2.5, gravimetric

Activity sensor Thermocouple Air samplingSolar sensorS

Wind sensorUltrasonic Anemometer

Washington NAEMS: Instruments placement and sampling

Some Results: diurnal variation of the natural ventilation for barn 2

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

0 4 8 12 16 20 24V

enti

lati

on, m

3 /s

Time of the day, hr (Reference: 12.00 am)

In-flowOut-flowAverage-flow

• The air inflow showed some discrepancy from the air outflow from the barn.

• The trends are nevertheless similar during the entire day indicating the credibility of the sonic anemometer measurements.

• The average of the inflow and outflow thus results in a more reasonable measurement of the ventilation rates during various times of the day

Some Results: Typical diurnal variation of the natural ventilation for barn 2

• Ventilation rates correlated well with wind velocity and ambient temperature.

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

0 4 8 12 16 20 24

Win

d V

eloc

ity, m

/s

Time of the day, hr (Reference: 12.00 am)

0

90

180

270

360

0 4 8 12 16 20 24

Win

d D

irec

tion,

deg

rees

Time of the day, hr (Reference: 12.00 am)

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

0 4 8 12 16 20 24

Ven

tila

tion

, m3 /

s

Time of the day, hr (Reference: 12.00 am)

In-flowOut-flowAverage-flow

y = 158.25x - 10.51R² = 0.94

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

0 4 8 12 16

Vent

ilatio

n rat

es, m

3 /s

Wind Velocity, m/s

y = 128.00x + 650.08R² = 0.66

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

-6 -3 0 3 6 9Ve

ntila

tion r

ates

, m3 /

s

Ambient Temperature, oC

• Wind direction is NE to SW which is consistent with observed ventilation, where air inflows are the N and E walls while the outflows are generally from the S and W walls.

Conclusion

• Based on the mass balance of air inflow and outflow from NV barn, this approach can be used to accurately estimate the ventilation of the NV barns – which is ½ the work done!

• Why? The ventilation can then be coupled with the concentrations of the various gases of interest at the inflow and outflow to determine emissions fluxes from the barns.

• Can’t share the emission fluxes – has not authority!

After NAEMS?

By at least 2011 all livestock farms identified as sources of pollution will have to comply with:

• The Clean Air Act (CAA)• The Comprehensive Environmental Response,

Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA)• The Emergency Planning and Community Right to

Know Act (EPCRA).

Mitigation Studies are expected to commence once emission studies are completed.

What else is going on? - Outreach Programs and Activities

Western Region Odor and Air Quality Education Program

• A collaboration between five universities in the western US to develop and deliver a comprehensive odor and air quality education program to frontline extension professionals

• In partnership with:

Currently funded by:

Currently funded by:

Producer Organizations

Outreach Programs and Activities

Workshop Curriculum • Lesson 1a - Dairy Air Regulations in California

• Lesson 1b - Air Quality Legislation in Oregon & Washington

• Lesson 2 - Measuring Livestock Odors

• Lesson 3 - Odor Mitigation Strategies (BMPS)

• Lesson 4 - Ammonia Measurements Techniques

• Lesson 5 - Ammonia Mitigation Strategies (BMPs)

• Lesson 6 - VOCs Measurement Techniques

• Lesson 7 - VOCs Mitigation Strategies (BMPs)

• Lesson 8 - H2S Measurements and BMPs

• Lesson 9 - Particulates Measurements Techniques

• Lesson 10 - Particulates Mitigation Strategies (BMPs)

• Lesson 11 - Dietary Changes for Air Quality

• Lesson 12 - Greenhouse Gasses and Carbon Credits

Frank Mitloehner

Mario E. de Haro Martí

Rober Hagevoort

Pius Ndegwa & Joe Harrison

Michael Gamroth

http://bsyse.wsu.edu/WOAQ/

Questions?