Non-Water Quality Impact Estimates for
Animal Feeding Operations
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Engineering and Analysis Division
Office of Water
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, D.C. 20460
December 2002
-------
Non-Water Quality Impact Estimates for
Animal Feeding Operations
Prepared for:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Engineering and Analysis Division
Office of Water
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, D.C. 20460
Prepared by:
Eastern Research Group, Inc.
14555 Avion Parkway
Suite 200
Chantilly, VA20151
December 2002
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS AND DISCLAIMER
This report was prepared by Eastern Research Group, Inc., under the direction
and review of the Office of Science and Technology.
Neither the United States government nor any of its employees, contractors,
subcontractors, or other employees makes any warranty, expressed or implied, or
assumes any legal liability or responsibility for any third party's use of, or the results of
such use of, any information, apparatus, product, or process discussed in this report, or
represents that its use by such a third party would not infringe on privately owned
rights.
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1-1
1.1 Pollutants Considered 1-1
1.2 Overview of Regulatory Options 1-6
1.3 Overview of Model Farm Operations 1-7
1.3.1 Beef Feedlots and Heifer Operations 1-10
1.3.2 Dairies 1-11
1.3.3 Veal Operations 1-13
1.3.4 Swine Operations 1-15
1.3.5 Poultry Operations 1-17
1.4 Changes to Calculation Methodology Since Proposal 1-20
1.5 Structure of Report 1-22
2.0 AIR EMISSIONS FROM ANIMAL CONFINEMENT OPERATIONS 2-1
2.1 Ammonia and Hydrogen Sulfide Emissions from Animal
Confinement and Manure Management Systems 2-1
2.1.1 Data Inputs 2-2
2.1.2 Emissions Methodology 2-3
2.1.3 Calculation of Model Farm Results 2-19
2.2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Manure Management Systems 2-35
2.2.1 Data Inputs 2-35
2.2.2 Methane Emissions Methodology 2-37
2.2.3 Model Farm Methane Emissions 2-43
2.2.4 Nitrous Oxide Methodology 2-56
2.2.5 Model Farm Nitrous Oxide Emissions 2-57
2.3 Criteria Air Emissions from Energy Recovery Systems 2-68
2.3.1 Data Inputs 2-68
2.3.2 Emissions Methodology 2-68
2.3.3 Model Farm Emissions 2-74
3.0 AIR EMISSIONS FROM LAND APPLICATION ACTIVITIES 3-1
3.1 Data Inputs 3-1
3.1.1 Ammonia Emission Factors 3-2
3.1.2 Manure Nitrogen Applied to Land 3-4
3.2 Ammonia Emissions Methodology 3-6
3.2.1 Ammonia Volatilization Rates 3-6
3.2.2 Calculation of Ammonia Emissions 3-11
3.2.3 Model Farm Ammonia Emissions 3-12
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Page
3.3 Nitrous Oxide Emissions Methodology 3-28
3.3.1 Calculation of Nitrous Oxide Emissions 3-28
3.3.2 Model Farm Nitrous Oxide Emissions 3-28
4.0 AIR EMISSIONS FROM VEHICLES 4-1
4.1 Off-Site Transportation 4-1
4.1.1 Emissions Methodology 4-2
4.1.2 Transportation Methods 4-4
4.2 On-Site Composting Activities 4-28
4.2.1 Emissions Methodology 4-28
4.2.2 Calculation of Emissions and Results 4-29
5.0 ENERGY IMPACTS 5-1
5.1 Land Application 5-1
5.1.1 Data Inputs 5-2
5.1.2 Energy Usage Methodology 5-3
5.1.3 Industry-Level Results 5-5
5.2 Transportation 5-8
5.2.1 Data Inputs 5-8
5.2.2 Energy Usage Methodology 5-9
5.2.3 Industry-Level Results 5-9
5.3 Anaerobic Digesters with Methane Recovery 5-9
5.3.1 Data Inputs 5-9
5.3.2 Energy Usage Methodology 5-16
5.3.3 Model Farm Results 5-16
6.0 INDUSTRY-LEVEL NWQI ESTIMATES 6-1
6.1 Summary of Air Emissions for Beef and Dairy Subcategories 6-1
6.2 Summary of Air Emissions for Swine, Poultry, and Veal
Subcategories 6-4
6.3 Energy Impacts 6-6
7.0 REFERENCES 7-1
11
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Page
1.1-1 Air Pollutant Emissions and Energy Usage Considered, by Production
System Component 1-6
1.3-1 Summary of Size Thresholds for Large and Medium CAFOs 1-8
1.3-2 Size Classes for Model Farms 1-9
1.3-3 Number of Beef Feedlots and Heifer Operations by Size and Region 1-11
1.3-4 Number of Dairies by Size and Region 1-13
1.3-5 Number of Veal Operations by Size and Region 1-15
1.3-6 Number of Swine Operations by Size and Region 1-17
1.3-7 Number of Poultry Operations by Size and Region 1-19
2.1-1 Data Inputs for Calculating Emissions from Confinement Housing 2-2
2.1-2 Nitrogen Runoff Losses from Beef, Heifer, and Dairy Drylots by Region 2-3
2.1-3 Total Ammonia Emission Rates for Beef, Heifer and Dairy Drylots by Region 2-5
2.1-4 Ammonia and Hydrogen Sulfide Emission Factors for Animal Confinement
Houses by Animal Type 2-6
2.1-5 Nitrogen Content of Fresh and Scraped Dairy Manure 2-7
2.1-6 Nitrogen Inputs to Ponds and Lagoons 2-11
2.1-7 Ammonia Emission Factors for Ponds and Lagoons by
Animal Type and by Region 2-13
2.1-8 Hydrogen Sulfide Emission Factors for Ponds and Lagoons by Animal Type 2-13
2.1-9 Amount of Nitrogen Sent to Composting by Animal Type 2-16
2.1-10 Ammonia Composting Emission Factors for Beef Feedlots, Heifer
Operations, and Dairies by Region 2-17
in
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Page
2.1-11 Amount of Nitrogen Sent to the Stockpile by Animal Type 2-19
2.1-12 Ammonia Stockpile Emission Factors for Beef Feedlots, Dairies, and Heifer
and Operations by Region 2-19
2.1-13 Ammonia Emissions from Beef Feedlots, Heifer Operations, and Dairies by
Regulatory Option and Model Farm (Ib/yr) 2-21
2.1-14 Ammonia Emissions from Veal, Swine, and Layer Operations by Regulatory
Option and Model Farm (Ib/yr) 2-25
2.1-15 Ammonia Emissions from Broiler and Turkey Operations by Regulatory
Option and Model Farm (Ib/yr) 2-29
2.1-16 Hydrogen Sulfide Emissions from Dairies, Veal, Swine, and Layer
Operations by Regulatory Option and Model Farm (Ib/yr) 2-30
2.2-1 Waste Characteristics Data Used in Greenhouse Gas Emission Calculations 2-36
2.2-2 Data from the Cost Model Methodology Used in Greenhouse
Gas Emission Calculations 2-38
2.2-3 Methane Conversion Factors for Dry Waste Management System Components .... 2-40
2.2-4 Methane Conversion Factors for Liquid/Slurry Waste Management
System Components by Region 2-42
2.2-5 Methane Emissions for Beef Feedlots and Heifer Operations
by Regulatory Option and Model Farm (kg/yr) 2-44
2.2-6 Methane Emissions for Dairies b Regulatory Option and Model Farm (kg/yr) 2-47
2.2-7 Methane Emissions for Veal Operations by Regulatory Option
and Model Farm (kg/yr) 2-49
2.2-8 Methane Emissions for Poultry Operations by Regulatory Option
and Model Farm (kg/yr) 2-51
2.2-9 Methane Emissions for Swine Operations by Regulatory Option
and Model Farm (kg/yr) 2-53
iv
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Page
2.2-10 Nitrous Oxide Emission Factors 2-57
2.2-11 Nitrous Oxide Emissions for Beef Feedlots and Heifer Operations
by Regulatory Option and Model Farm (kg/yr) 2-59
2.2-12 Nitrous Oxide Emissions for Dairy Operations by Regulatory Option and
Model Farm (kg/yr) 2-61
2.2-13 Nitrous Oxide Emissions for Veal Operations by Regulatory Option and
Model Farm (kg/yr) 2-62
2.2-14 Nitrous Oxide Emissions for Poultry Operations by Regulatory Option and
Model Farm (kg/yr) 2-64
2.2-15 Nitrous Oxide Emissions for Swine Operations by Regulatory Option and
Model Farm (kg/yr) 2-65
2.3-1 Total Methane Generated - Options 5 and 6 (kg/year) 2-69
2.3-2 Total Biogas Generated - Options 5 and 6 (m3/yr) 2-74
2.3-3 Model Farm Sulfur Dioxide Emissions from Flaring (Option 5)
and Digesters (Option 6) (kg/yr) 2-75
2.3-4 Model Farm Carbon Monoxide Emissions from Flaring (Option 5)
and Digesters (Option 6) (kg/yr) 2-76
2.3-5 Model Farm Nitrogen Oxide Emissions from Flaring (Option 5)
and Digesters (Option 6) (kg/yr) 2-77
3.1-1 Percentage of Nitrogen Volatilizing as Ammonia from Land Application 3-2
3.1-2 Industry-Level Pounds of Nitrogen Going to Land Application 3-7
3.2-1 Percentage of Nitrogen Volatilizing as Ammonia from Land Application
by Animal Type 3-9
3.2-2 Industry-Level On-Site Ammonia Emissions from Land Application of
Animal Waste by Regulatory Option (tons/yr) 3-13
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Page
3.2-3 Industry-Level Off-Site Ammonia Emissions from Land Application of
Animal Waste by Regulatory Option (tons/yr) 3-21
3.3-1 Industry-Level On-Site Nitrous Oxide Emissions from Land Application of
Animal Waste by Regulatory Option (Mg CO2Eq./yr) 3-30
3.3-2 Industry-Level Off-Site Nitrous Oxide Emissions from Land Application of
Animal Waste by Regulatory Option (Mg CO2Eq./yr) 3-39
4.1-1 Emission Factors for Diesel Vehicles 4-4
4.1-2 Industry Miles Traveled for Off Site Transportation 4-7
4.1-3 Industry-Level Incremental VOC Emissions above Baseline from Transportation
of Manure Off Site by Regulatory Option (Ibs/yr) 4-8
4.1-4 Industry-Level Incremental NOX Emissions above Option 1 from Transportation
of Manure Off Site by Regulatory Option (Ibs/yr) 4-13
4.1-5 Industry-Level Incremental PM Emissions above Option 1 from Transportation
of Manure Off Site by Regulatory Option (Ibs/yr) 4-18
4.1-6 Industry-Level Incremental CO Emissions above Option 1 from Transportation
of Manure Off Site by Regulatory Option (Ibs/yr) 4-23
4.2-1 Industry-Level Composting Miles Traveled Under Option 5A 4-30
4.2-2 Compost Pollutant Emissions for Model Farms Under Option 5 A (Ibs/yr) 4-31
5.1-1 Required Horsepower for Center Pivots 5-2
5.1-2 Required Flow Rate for Traveling Guns 5-3
5.1-3 Required Horsepower for Traveling Guns 5-3
5.1-4 Incremental Industry-Level Electrical Usage for Center Pivot or Traveling Gun
Irrigation by Regulatory Option (MW-hr/yr) 5-6
5.2-1 Industry-Level Fuel Usage for On-Site and Off-Site Transportation and
Composting Activities by Regulatory Option 5-10
vi
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Page
5.3-1 Electrical Usage for Anaerobic Digestion at Dairies by Model Farm and
Regulatory Option (kW-hr/yr) 5-17
5.3-2 Electrical Usage for Anaerobic Digestion at Swine Operations by Model
Farm and Regulatory Option (kW-hr/yr) 5-18
6.2-1 NWQIs for Beef (Includes Heifers) - Large CAFOs 6-8
6.2-2 NWQIs for Dairy - Large CAFOs 6-9
6.2-3 NWQIs for Veal - Large CAFOs 6-10
6.2-4 NWQIs for Swine - Large CAFOs 6-11
6.2-5 NWQIs for Chickens - Large CAFOs 6-12
6.2-6 NWQIs for Turkeys - Large CAFOs 6-13
6.2-7 NWQIs for Beef (Includes Heifers) - Medium CAFOs 6-14
6.2-8 NWQIs for Dairy - Medium CAFOs 6-15
6.2-9 NWQIs for Veal - Medium CAFOs 6-16
6.2-10 NWQIs for Swine - Medium CAFOs 6-17
6.2-11 NWQIs for Chickens - Medium CAFOs 6-18
6.2-12 NWQIs for Turkeys - Medium CAFOs 6-19
vn
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
1.3-1 Waste Management at the Model Beef Feedlot and Heifer Operation 1-10
1.3-2 Waste Management at the Flush Dairy Model Farm 1-12
1.3-3 Waste Management at the Scrape/Hose Dairy Model Farm 1-13
1.3-4 Waste Management at the Veal Model Farm 1-14
1.3-5 Waste Management at the Swine Model Farm 1-16
1.3-6 Waste Management at Poultry Model Farms 1-18
Vlll
-------
i.o INTRODUCTION
Eliminating or reducing one form of pollution may create or aggravate other
environmental problems. Sections 304(b) and 306 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) require that
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) consider the non-water quality environmental
impacts (NWQI) of effluent limitations guidelines and standards (ELGs). This report presents
the methodology and estimates of the NWQI for seven regulatory options that were considered
for concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs), including beef feedlots, dairies, and heifer,
veal, swine, broiler, layer, and turkey operations. The impacts include:
Air emissions from the animal production area, including animal housing
and manure storage and treatment areas;
Air emissions from the application of manure to land;
Air emissions from vehicles, including those involved in the off-site
transport of manure and in on-site composting operations; and
Energy impacts from land application activities, the use of digesters, and
the transportation of manure.
Typically, NWQI also include estimates of the generation of solid waste. Because
manure is considered a by product of animal feeding operations with resource value and is not
regulated directly, the solid waste NWQI of the manure are not considered. In addition, although
the chemical content of the manure may change, the amount of manure generated is not expected
to change significantly under any of the regulatory options being considered; therefore, a
discussion of solid waste NWQI is not included in this report.
1.1 Pollutants Considered
A number of factors affect the emission of pollutants from CAFOs and their use
of energy. Most of the substances emitted are the products of microbial processes that
decompose the complex organic constituents in manure. The microbial environment determines
which substances are generated and at what rate. This section describes the chemical and
1-1
-------
biological mechanisms that affect the formation and release of emissions. The pollutants
included in this analysis are:
Ammonia. Ammonia is a by-product of the microbial decomposition of
the organic nitrogen compounds in manure. Nitrogen occurs as both
unabsorbed nutrients in manure and as either urea (mammals) or uric acid
(poultry) in urine. Urea and uric acid will hydrolyze rapidly to form
ammonia and will be emitted soon after excretion. Ammonia will continue
to form during with the microbial breakdown of manure under both
aerobic and anaerobic conditions. Because it is highly soluble in water,
ammonia will accumulate in manure handled as liquids and semi solids or
slurries, but will volatilize rapidly with drying from manure handled as
solids. Therefore, the potential for ammonia volatilization exists wherever
manure is present, and ammonia will be emitted from confinement
buildings, open dry lots, stockpiles, anaerobic lagoons, and land
application from both wet and dry handling systems.
The volatilization of ammonia from C AFOs can be highly variable
depending on total ammonia concentration, temperature, pH, and storage
time. Emissions will depend on how much of the ammonia-nitrogen in
solution reacts to form ammonia versus ionized ammonium (NH4+), which
is nonvolatile. In solution, the partitioning of ammonia between the
ionized (NH4+) and un-ionized (NH3) species is controlled by pH and
temperature. Under acidic conditions (pH<7.0) ammonium is the
predominant species, and ammonia volatilizes at a lower rate than at
higher pH values. However, some ammonia volatilization occurs even
under moderately acidic conditions. As pH increases above 7.0, the
concentration of ammonia increases, as does the rate of ammonia
volatilization. The pH of manure handled as solids can be in the range of
7.5 to 8.5, which results in fairly rapid ammonia volatilization. Manure
handled as liquids or semi solids tend to have a lower pH. Nitrogen losses
from animal manure as ammonia can easily exceed 50 percent (Van Horn
etal., 1994).
Nitrous oxide. Nitrous oxide also can be produced from the microbial
decomposition of organic nitrogen compounds in manure. Unlike
ammonia, however, nitrous oxide will be emitted only under certain
conditions. Nitrous oxide emissions will occur only if nitrification occurs
and is followed by denitrification. Nitrification is the microbial oxidation
of ammonia to nitrites and nitrates, and the process requires an aerobic
environment. Denitrification most commonly is a microbially mediated
process where nitrites and nitrates are reduced under anaerobic conditions.
The principal end product of denitrification is dinitrogen gas (N2).
However, small amounts of nitrous oxide as well as nitric oxide also can
1-2
-------
be generated under certain conditions. Therefore, for nitrous emissions to
occur, the manure must first be handled aerobically and then anaerobically.
Research indicates that aerobic manure storage produces more nitrous
oxide than anaerobic storage such as lagoons (AAF Canada, 1998).
Nitrous oxide emissions are most likely to occur from unpaved drylots for
dairy and beef cattle and at land application sites. These are the sites most
likely to have the necessary conditions for both nitrification and
denitrification. At these sites, the ammonia nitrogen that is not lost by
volatilization will be adsorbed on soil particles and subsequently oxidized
to nitrite and nitrate nitrogen. Emissions of nitrous oxide from these sites
will depend on two primary factors. The first is drainage. In poorly drained
soils, the frequency of saturated conditions, and thus the anaerobic
conditions necessary for denitrification, will be higher than for well-
drained soils. Conversely, the opportunity for leaching of nitrite and nitrate
nitrogen through the soil will be higher in well-drained soils, and the
conversion to nitrous oxide will be less. Therefore, poorly drained soils
will enhance nitrous oxide emissions. The second factor is plant uptake of
ammonia and nitrate nitrogen. Manure that is applied to cropland outside
of the growing season will have more available nitrogen for nitrous oxide
emissions as will manure that is applied at higher than agronomic rates.
Methane. With respect to livestock emissions, methane is produced
during the normal digestive processes of animals and the decomposition of
animal manure. This analysis only assesses the amount of methane
produced during decomposition of animal manure. Methane is a by-
product of the microbial degradation of organic matter under anaerobic
conditions. The microorganisms responsible, known collectively as
methanogens, decompose the carbon (cellulose, sugars, proteins, fats) in
manure and bedding materials into methane and carbon dioxide. Because
anaerobic conditions are necessary, manure handled as a liquid or slurry
will emit methane. Because methane is insoluble in water, it volatilizes
from solution as rapidly as it is generated. Concurrent with the generation
of methane is the microbially mediated production of carbon dioxide,
which is only sparingly soluble in water. Therefore, methane emissions are
accompanied by carbon dioxide emissions. The mixture of these two gases
is commonly referred to as biogas. The relative fractions of methane and
carbon dioxide in biogas vary depending on the population of
methanogens present. Under conditions favorable for the growth of
methanogens, biogas normally will be between 60 and 70 percent methane
and 30 to 40 percent carbon dioxide. If, however, the growth of
methanogens is inhibited, the methane fraction of biogas can be less than
30 percent.
1-3
-------
The principal factors affecting methane emissions are the methane-
producing potential of the waste and the portion of the manure that
decomposes anaerobically. The second factor depends on the
biodegradability of the organic fraction and how the manure is managed.
The organic content of manure is measured as volatile solids. When
manure is stored or handled as a liquid (e.g., anaerobic lagoons, ponds,
tanks, pits), it will decompose anaerobically and produce a significant
quantity of methane. Anaerobic lagoons are designed to balance
methanogenic microbial activity with organic loading and, therefore, will
produce more methane than ponds or tanks. When manure is handled as a
solid (e.g., in open feedlots or stockpiles), it tends to decompose
aerobically, and little or no methane is produced. Likewise, manure
application sites are not likely sources of methane, because the necessary
anaerobic conditions generally do not exist, except when soils become
saturated. In addition, because methane is insoluble in water, any methane
generated during liquid storage or stabilization treatment will be released
immediately and will not be present when manure is applied to cropland.
Hydrogen sulfide. Hydrogen sulfide and other reduced sulfur compounds
are produced as manure decomposes anaerobically. Hydrogen sulfide is
the predominant reduced sulfur compound emitted from CAFOs. Other
compounds that are emitted are methyl mercaptan, dimethyl sulfide,
dimethyl disulfide, and carbonyl sulfide. Small quantities of other reduced
sulfur compounds are likely to be emitted as well. There are two primary
sources of sulfur in animal manure: sulfur amino acids contained in the
feed and inorganic sulfur compounds, such as copper sulfate and zinc
sulfate, which are used as feed additives to supply trace minerals and serve
as growth stimulants. Although sulfates are used as trace mineral carriers
in all sectors of animal agriculture, their use is more extensive in the
poultry and swine industries. A possible third source of sulfur in some
locations is trace minerals in drinking water.
Under anaerobic conditions, any excreted sulfur that is not in the form of
hydrogen sulfide will be reduced microbially to hydrogen sulfide.
Therefore, manure managed as liquids or slurries are potential sources of
hydrogen sulfide emissions. The magnitude of hydrogen sulfide emissions
is a function of liquid phase concentration, temperature, and pH.
Temperature and pH affect the solubility of hydrogen sulfide in water. The
solubility of hydrogen sulfide in water increases at pH values above 7.
Therefore, as the pH shifts from alkaline to acidic (pH<7), the potential for
hydrogen sulfide emissions increases. Under anaerobic conditions,
livestock and poultry manure will be acidic, with pH values ranging from
5.5 to 6.5. Under aerobic conditions, any reduced sulfur compounds in
manure will be oxidized microbially to nonvolatile sulfate, and emissions
of hydrogen sulfide will be minimal. Therefore, emissions from
confinement facilities with dry manure handling systems and dry manure
1-4
-------
stockpiles should be negligible if there is adequate exposure to
atmospheric oxygen to maintain aerobic conditions. Any hydrogen sulfide
that is generated in dry manure generally will be oxidized as diffusion
through aerobic areas occurs.
Criteria air pollutants. CAFOs that transport their manure off site and/or
compost their manure on site use equipment (e.g., trucks, tractors) that
release criteria air pollutants when operated. Criteria air pollutants are
also released when biogas, generated from energy recovery systems or
anaerobic digesters, is used for fuel (e.g., in an engine or flared). The
criteria air pollutants included in this analysis are volatile organic
compounds (VOCs), nitrogen oxides (NOX), particulate matter (PM), and
carbon monoxide (CO). Sulfur dioxide (SO2) is also estimated for energy
recovery systems, as it is a byproduct of the flaring and combustion
process.
Energy usage. CAFOs also use energy when transporting manure off site,
applying manure to land, and performing on-site operations such as
composting. In some cases, the CAFO may generate energy from
capturing and using biogas. Energy usage included in this analysis are
kilowatt hours (kW-hr) and fuel (gallons).
Animal feeding operations generate air emissions and use energy in their
operations under baseline conditions (i.e., prior to implementation of a regulatory option).
Where possible, the NWQI estimates include baseline estimates, as well as estimates for each
regulatory option. In some cases, however, there are insufficient data to quantify baseline
NWQI. In these cases, the impacts presented in this report reflect only the expected change in
impacts due to implementation of the regulatory options. Table 1.1-1 summarizes the air
pollutant emissions and energy usage expected from each of the production system components.
1-5
-------
Table 1.1-1
Air Pollutant Emissions and Energy Usage Considered, by Production System
Component
Pollutant/ Energy
usage
Ammonia (NH3)
Nitrous oxide (N2O)
Methane (CH4)
Hydrogen sulfide (H2S)
Volatile Organic
Compounds (VOCs)
Nitrogen Oxides (NOx)
Paniculate matter (PM)
Carbon monoxide (CO)
Sulfur dioxide (SO2)
Energy usage (kW-hrs)
Fuel (gallons)
Drylot
v'
v'
v'
v'
Storage
v'
v'
v'
v'
Stockpile3
v'
v'
v'
v'
v'
v'
v'
v'
v'
Land
applica-
tion"
v'
v'
v'
v'
Manure
hauling/
Transport
v'
v'
v'
v'
v'
v'
Biogas
burning
v'
v'
v'
v'
'Includes composting activities, which require the use of diesel-powered equipment.
Includes the use of irrigation equipment to apply liquid manure.
1.2
Overview of Regulatory Options
Non-water quality impacts are presented in this report for the following seven
regulatory options for CAFOs considered by EPA. These options are:
1. Zero discharge from a facility designed, maintained, and operated to hold
the waste and wastewater, including stormwater, from runoff plus the 25-
year, 24-hour storm event. This option includes implementation of feedlot
best management practices, including stormwater diversions, lagoon and
pond depth markers, periodic inspections, nitrogen-based agronomic
application rates, elimination of manure application within 100 feet of any
surface water, tile drain inlet, or sinkhole, and mortality-handling, nutrient
management planning, and record-keeping guidelines.
2. The same as Option 1, except nitrogen-based agronomic application rates
are replaced by phosphorus-based agronomic application rates as dictated
by site-specific conditions.
1-6
-------
3. The same as Option 2, plus additional groundwater conditions.
4. The same as Option 2, plus additional surface water monitoring.
5. For swine, poultry, and veal operations, the same as Option 2, but is based
on zero discharge with no overflow under any circumstances (i.e., total
confinement and covered storage).
5 A. For beef feedlots, dairies, and heifer operations, the same as Option 2, plus
implementation of a drier manure management system (i.e., composting).
6. For Large swine operations and dairies, the same as Option 2, plus
implementation of anaerobic digestion with energy recovery.
7. The same as Option 2, plus timing restrictions on land application of
animal waste to frozen, snow-covered, or saturated ground.
EPA developed these regulatory options to ensure the protection of surface water
in and around CAFOs; however, one or more of the requirements included in these options may
also have an impact on the amount and form of compounds released to air, as well as the energy
that is required to operate the CAFO.
1.3 Overview of Model Farm Operations
EPA develops NWQI estimates first at the model-farm level for each regulatory
option. These estimates then can be aggregated to estimate industry-level NWQI. To this end,
EPA estimates the compliance costs (i.e., the cost to comply with the option) and non-water
quality impacts (i.e., the impact the option has on the release of constituents to media other than
water) incurred through the implementation of each option. To accomplish this task, EPA
initially defines the baseline conditions that are present in the industry (i.e., prior to
implementing any new requirements, EPA defines how the industry currently operates).
When farm-specific data are not available, EPA develops model farms to provide
a reasonable representation of the industry. The Agency develops model farms to reflect the
different characteristics found in the industry, such as the size or capacity of an operation, type of
operation, geographic location, mode of operation, and type of waste management operations.
1-7
-------
These models are based on data gathered during site visits, information provided by industry
members and their associations, and other available information. EPA estimates the number of
facilities that are represented by each model, estimates the impacts for each model farm, and then
calculates industry-level impacts by multiplying model farm estimates by the number of facilities
represented by each particular model. Given the amount and type of information that is available
for the CAFOs, EPA has chosen a model-farm approach to estimate NWQI and to define
baseline conditions.
Model farms are based on the size of the operation, regional location, and/or
waste management practices. For this analysis, EPA modeled Medium and Large CAFOs
throughout the United States. Large AFOs are considered CAFOs if they fall within the size
range presented in Table 1.3-1. Medium AFOs are defined as CAFOs only if they fall within the
size range presented in Table 1.3-1 and they meet one of the two specific criteria governing the
method of discharge: (1) pollutants are discharged through a man-made ditch, flushing system, or
other similar man-made device; or (2) pollutants are discharged directly into waters of the United
States that originate outside the facility and pass over, across, or through the facility or otherwise
come into direct contact with the confined animals.
Table 1.3-1
Summary of Size Thresholds for Large and Medium CAFOs
Sector
Mature dairy cattle
Veal calves
Cattle or cow/calf pairs
Swine (weighing 55 pounds or more)
Swine (weighing less than 55 pounds)
Turkeys
Chickens (liquid manure handling system)
Chickens other than laying hens (other than a liquid
manure handling system)
Laying hens (other than a liquid manure handling
system)
Large
More than 700
More than 1,000
More than 1,000
More than 2,500
More than 10,000
More than 55,000
More than 30,000
More than 125,000
More than 82,000
Medium3
200 - 700
300 - 1,000
300 - 1,000
750 - 2,500
3,000 - 10,000
16,500 - 55,000
9,000 - 30,000
30,000 - 125,000
25,000 - 82,000
1 Must also meet one of two criteria to be defined as a CAFO.
1-8
-------
More specifically, EPA developed and analyzed up to five size groups for each
animal type, including one to two size groups covering large CAFOs and three size groups
covering Medium CAFOs. The size groups were analyzed to evaluate the costs, benefits, and
impacts of each potential regulatory option. Table 1.3-2 presents the size groups for each animal
type.
Table 1.3-2
Size Classes for Model Farms
Animal Type
Beef
Heifer
Dairy (Mature
Dairy Cows)
Veal
Swine
Dry Layers
Wet Layers
Broilers
Turkeys
Medium 1
300-499
300-499
200-349
300-499
750-1,249
25,000-49,999
N/A
37,750-49,999
16,500-27,499
Medium 2
500-749
500-749
350-524
500-749
1,250-1,874
50,000-74,999
N/A
50,000-74,999
27,500-41,249
Medium 3
750-999
750-999
525-699
>750
1,875-2,499
75,000-81,999
9,000-29,999
75,000-124,999
41,250-54,999
Large 1
1,000-7,999
> 1,000
>700
N/A
2,500-4,999
82,000-599,999
>30,000
125,000-179,999
>55,000
Large 2
> 8,000
N/A
N/A
N/A
> 5,000
>600,000
N/A
> 180,000
N/A
N/A - Not applicable.
In addition, the farms are broken out into five different geographic locations throughout the
United States. These regions are:
Central: AZ, CO, ID, MT, NM, NV, OK, TX, UT, WY;
Mid-Atlantic: CT, DE, KY, MA, MD, ME, NC, NH, NJ, NY, PA, RI, TN,
VA, VT, WV;
Midwest: IA, IL, IN, KS, MI, MN, MO, ND, NE, OH, SD, WI;
Pacific: AK, CA, HI, OR, WA; and
South: AL, AR, FL, GA, LA, MS, SC.
1-9
-------
The following subsections summarize the method(s) of operation for each model
farm, the size of the operation for each model, and the industry population that makes up the
model farm (by geographic region). Additional data on the model farms, including the
determination of model farm populations, data on waste generation, and sources used can be
found in the cost methodology report summarizing EPA's compliance cost estimates (U.S. EPA,
2002a).
1.3.1
Beef Feedlots and Heifer Operations
Beef feedlots and heifer operations house cattle on drylots. The manure that
deposits in the drylot is periodically scraped and stockpiled on site or transported to cropland on
or off site. It is handled as a solid material. Runoff from the operation is typically collected and
stored in a waste storage pond, which is sometimes preceded by a sedimentation basin. Figure
1.3-1 depicts the waste management system for the model beef feedlot and heifer operation.
Solids (98.5%)
Solids
End Use
End Use
Figure 1.3-1. Waste Management at the Model
Beef Feedlot and Heifer Operation
1-10
-------
Table 1.3-3 presents the estimated number of beef feedlots and heifer operations
by model farm in each region.
Table 1.3-3
Number of Beef Feedlots and Heifer Operations by Size and Region
Animal
Type
Beef
Heifer
Size Class
Large 2
Large 1
Medium 3
Medium 2
Medium 1
Large 1
Medium 3
Medium 2
Medium 1
Average
Head
25,897
1,839
766
552
370
1,500
875
625
400
Region
Central
133
424
6
9
17
145
9
22
8
Mid-
Atlantic
3
8
0.4
1
2
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Midwest
268
856
20
40
73
N/A
8
20
150
Pacific
17
57
1
1
2
97
3
7
4
South
N/A
N/A
0.1
0.2
0.3
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Total
421
1,345
28
52
94
242
20
48
162
1.3.2
Dairies
Two types of waste management systems are modeled for dairies: flush dairies
(e.g., flush both barn and milking parlor) and scrape/hose dairies (e.g., scrape barn and hose
milking parlor).
Dairies with flush barns house the milking cows (both lactating and dry) in
freestall barns that are flushed two to three times daily while the cows are being milked. The
cows are milked in separate parlors that are also flushed in between milkings. Flush water is
collected in a central collection system and transported to an on-site anaerobic lagoon, which in
some cases may be preceded by solids separation. Immature animals (i.e., heifers and calves) are
housed on drylots. The manure that deposits in the drylot is handled as a solid material and is
periodically scraped and stockpiled on site or transported to cropland on or off site. Runoff from
1-11
-------
the drylot is routed to the lagoon. Figure 1.3-2 depicts the waste management system for the
flush dairy model farm.
Figure 1.3-2. Waste Management at the Flush Dairy Model Farm
Dairies with scrape barns house the milking cows (both lactating and dry) in
freestall barns that are scraped daily. The scraped manure is stockpiled on site or transported to
cropland on or off site. The cows are milked in separate parlors that are hosed down between
milkings. Parlor hose water is collected in a central collection system and transported to an on-
site anaerobic lagoon, which in some cases may be preceded by solids separation. Immature
animals (i.e., heifers and calves) are housed on drylots. The manure that deposits in the drylot is
handled as a solid material and periodically scraped and stockpiled on site or transported to
cropland on or off site. Runoff from the drylot is routed to the lagoon. Figure 1.3-3 depicts the
waste management system for the scrape/hose dairy model farm.
The facility includes all contiguous and non-contiguous property with established
boundaries owned, operated, leased, or under control of the business entity. The property may be
divided by public or private right-of-way.
1-12
-------
Table 1.3-4 presents the estimated number of dairies by model farm in each
region.
Figure 1.3-3. Waste Management at the Scrape/Hose Dairy Model Farm
Table 1.3-4
Number of Dairies by Size and Region
Animal
Type
Dairy
Size Class
Large 1
Medium 3
Medium 2
Medium 1
Average
Head
1,430
600
425
250
Region
Central
401
25
48
133
Mid-
Atlantic
104
41
194
538
Midwest
95
26
172
478
Pacific
759
30
29
81
South
91
15
36
100
Total
1,450
138
480
1,331
1.3.3
Veal Operations
Veal calves are housed in total confinement barns. Two types of waste
management systems are modeled for veal operations: deep pit storage system and flush system.
In both systems, the floor of the barn is composed of slats directly above a storage pit (deep pit
storage system) or flush alley (flush system).
1-13
-------
Veal operations with flush systems wash the storage pits with a large volume of
water once a day or more to remove the waste from the pit. The waste is washed into a lagoon
where it is stored until it is land applied or transported off site. The model farm assumes that 67
percent of the veal industry uses the flush system. Figure 1.3-4 depicts the waste management
system for the veal flush system model farm.
Flush System
Solids
Freestall
Barn
(Flush)
>,
Solids
Separation
(sometimes
present)
•w
^
Lagoon
>.
^r
End Use
Deep Pit Storage System
Freestall w/
Underplt
Storage
^
^
End Use
Figure 1.3-4. Waste Management at the Veal Model Farm
Veal operations with deep pit systems start with several inches of water in the pit
under the house, where the manure is stored until it is pumped out for field application
approximately twice a year. This system uses less water, creating a slurry that has higher nutrient
concentrations than the liquid manure systems. The model farm assumes that 33 percent of the
veal industry uses the deep pit system. Figure 1.3-4 depicts the waste management system for the
veal deep pit system model farm.
Table 1.3-5 presents the estimated number of veal operations by model farm in
each region.
1-14
-------
Table 1.3-5
Number of Veal Operations by Size and Region
Animal
Type
Veal
Size
Class
Medium 3
Medium 2
Medium 1
Average
Head
1,080
540
400
Region
Central
1
0.1
0.1
Mid-
Atlantic
N/A
0.0
0.0
Midwest
16
1
2
Pacific
N/A
N/A
N/A
South
N/A
N/A
N/A
Total
17
1
2
1.3.4
Swine Operations
Swine are housed in total confinement barns. Two types of waste management
systems are modeled for swine operations: deep pit storage system and flush system. In both
systems, the floor of the barn is composed of slats directly above a storage pit (deep pit storage
system) or flush alley (flush system).
Swine operations with flush systems wash the storage pits with a large volume of
water once a day or more to remove the waste from the pit. The waste is washed into a lagoon
where it is stored until it is land applied or transported off site. Figure 1.3-5 depicts the waste
management system for the swine flush system model farm. Operations in the Central region are
assumed to operate an evaporative lagoon, while operations in the Mid-Atlantic and Midwest are
assumed to operate a traditional anaerobic lagoon.
Swine operations with deep pit systems start with several inches of water in the pit
under the house, where the manure is stored until it is pumped out for field application
approximately twice a year. This system uses less water, creating a slurry that has higher nutrient
concentrations than the liquid manure systems. Figure 1.3-5 depicts the waste management
system for the swine deep pit system model farm.
1-15
-------
Flush System
Deep Pit Storage System
Figure 1.3-5. Waste Management at the Swine Model Farm
The waste produced at an operation is dependent of the type of animals that are
present. In farrow-to-finish (FF) operations, the pigs are born and raised at the same facility. In
grow-fmish (GF) operations, young pigs are first born and cared for at a nursery and then brought
to the finishing farm.
Table 1.3-6 presents the estimated number of swine operations by model farm in
each region.1
'Because swine are managed indoors, climate is not a major factor in determining farm characteristics; therefore,
only three regions (rather than five as with beef, heifer and dairy) are modeled for these animal groups. Although
the number of swine operations are reported in Table 1.3-6 only for the Central, Mid-Atlantic, and Midwest regions,
the facility count actually represents all farms in the United States.
1-16
-------
Table 1.3-6
Number of Swine Operations by Size and Region
Animal
Type
Swine
(FF)
Swine
(GF)
Size
Class
Large 2
Large 1
Medium 3
Medium 2
Medium 1
Large 2
Large 1
Medium 3
Medium 2
Medium 1
Region
Central
Average
Head
8,298
3,626
N/A
N/A
N/A
29,389
3,455
N/A
N/A
N/A
Number of
Facilities
105
126
N/A
N/A
N/A
55
85
N/A
N/A
N/A
Mid-Atlantic
Average
Head
17,118
3,509
2,165
1,518
846
8,893
3,554
2,184
1,521
963
Number of
Facilities
288
218
18
30
59
386
387
25
19
37
Midwest
Average
Head
13,819
3,444
2,152
1,460
814
10,029
3,417
2,124
1,422
900
Number of
Facilities
609
992
118
266
521
196
477
64
110
215
N/A - There are no Medium swine operations in the Central Region.
1.3.5
Poultry Operations
Model farms for broiler, turkey, dry layer, and wet layer operations are developed
to represent poultry operations in the United States.
Broilers and turkeys are typically housed in long barns (approximately 40 feet
wide and 400 to 500 feet long) and are grown on the floor of the house. A layer of bedding (e.g.,
wood shavings) is added to the floor of the barn, and the broilers or turkeys deposit manure
directly onto the bedding. Bedding is initially added to the houses at a depth of approximately
four inches and about one inch of new bedding is applied between flocks.
Manure from broiler and turkey operations accumulates on the floor where it is
mixed with bedding, forming litter. Litter close to drinking water forms a cake that is removed
between flocks. The rest of the litter in a broiler house is removed periodically (6 months to 2
years) from the barns, and then transported off site or land applied. Typically, broiler and turkey
1-17
-------
operations are completely dry waste management systems. Figure 1.3-6 presents the waste
management system for both the broiler and turkey model farm.
Broiler or Turkey
House
Caged Layer Hlgh-Rlse
House
Caged Layer Shallow Pit
Flush House
Figure 1.3-6. Waste Management at Poultry Model Farms
Layers are typically confined in cages that are housed in high-rise cage systems or
shallow pit flush housing. In a high-rise house, the layer cages are suspended over a bottom
story, where the manure is deposited and stored. Housing facilities for flush cage systems are
typically one story. The tiered cages are suspended over a shallow pit. Manure drops directly
into the pit, where it is flushed out periodically using recycled lagoon water.
Layer operations may operate as a wet or a dry system. Approximately 10 percent
of layer houses use liquid flush, where waste is removed from the house and stored in a lagoon.
The remaining layer operations typically operate as a dry system, with manure stored in the house
for up to a year. A scraper is used to remove waste from the collection pit or cage area. The
lagoon wastewater and dry manure are stored until land applied or transported off site. Figure
1.3-6 presents the waste management system for the wet and dry layer model farm.
1-18
-------
Table 1.3-7 presents the estimated number of poultry operations by model farm in
each region.2
Table 1.3-7
Number of Poultry Operations by Size and Region
Animal
Type
Broiler
Layer -
Dry
Layer -
Wet
Turkey
Size Class
Large 2
Large 1
Medium 3
Medium 2
Medium 1
Large 2
Large 1
Medium 3
Medium 2
Medium 1
Large 1
Medium 3
Large 1
Medium 3
Medium 2
Medium 1
Regions
Mid-Atlantic
Average
Head
373633
119756
80756
51603
39218
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
97111
45193
31267
18539
Number of
Facilities
174
338
61
70
53
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
163
3
5
9
Midwest
Average
Head
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
1229095
232259
84731
52582
35781
N/A
N/A
158365
45469
30514
18092
Number of
Facilities
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
61
439
0.7
4
7
N/A
N/A
225
2
4
8
South
Average
Head
376099
118624
80978
51380
39046
884291
244163
84669
44909
30560
86898
3654
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Number of
Facilities
424
696
124
127
85
26
198
0.5
3
8
383
24
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A - Not applicable.
2Because poultry are managed indoors, climate is not a major factor in determining farm characteristics; therefore,
only one or two regions (rather than five as with beef, heifer, dairy, and veal) are modeled for these animal groups.
Although the number of poultry operations are reported in Table 1.3-7 only for certain regions, the facility count
actually represents all farms in the United States. The regions presented in the table are those where the majority of
the operations are located.
1-19
-------
1.4 Changes to Calculation Methodology Since Proposal
Five major changes occurred since proposal that affect the industry scope and the
definition of the model farms. These changes, presented below, greatly affect the magnitude of
the non-water quality impact estimates.
Industry Threshold. At proposal, EPA calculated industry-level non-water
quality impacts for the two regulatory thresholds proposed for the NPDES
program. Threshold 1 is a two-tier structure that establishes a single
threshold at the equivalent of 500 AU; therefore, EPA included all
operations defined as having 500 AU or more in the Threshold 1
estimates. Threshold 2 is a three-tier structure that defines all operations
with 1,000 AU or more as CAFOs, but only a subset of operations with
300 to 1,000 AU as CAFOs. The final non-water quality impacts
estimates are presented for all Medium and Large CAFOs.
Facility Counts. The number of facilities, broken out by region and size
group, have changed since proposal based on new data provided by
USDA. In some cases, the number of facilities has greatly increased.
Average Head. Due in part to new data provided by USDA, the average
head by size group has changed since proposal. The average head counts
used at proposal for broiler, turkeys, dry layers, and swine varied by
region, while the new head counts provided by USDA do not.
New Size Group. Since proposal, the Medium 2 size group has been
broken into two groups: Medium 2 and Medium 3.
High/Medium/Low Performers. Based on data provided by USDA, certain
model farms were broken into high, medium, and low performers for
certain waste management components (i.e., concrete and earthen settling
basins, liquid land application, and berms). This change impacts the
number of operations with these waste management components at
baseline.
In addition, EPA has made several changes to the methodologies for estimating
the NWQI. These changes were based upon both internal reviews and updates supported by
ongoing scientific research reported in the literature, as well as technical review comments
provided by EPA's Office of Air and Radiation.
1-20
-------
Ammonia and Hydrogen Sulfide. The methodology for calculating
ammonia and hydrogen sulfide emissions from CAFOs include revised
emission factors for estimating emissions from lagoons and ponds, swine
deep pits, and manure composting.
Greenhouse Gases. EPA made changes to the methodologies for
calculating greenhouse gas emissions from CAFOs, including the removal
of carbon dioxide emissions from the analysis, a revised nitrous oxide
emission factor for poultry housing without bedding, an updated methane
conversion factor methodology for liquid systems, and the inclusion of
nitrous oxide emissions from land application activities.
Emissions from Transportation of Manure. EPA also made changes to the
methodologies for estimating air emissions from the transport of excess
manure. In the revised transportation emission estimates, EPA included
transportation emissions from phosphorous-based Category 3 facilities,
assumed that liquid manure is applied before solid manure, and used
revised transportation emission factors for volatile organic compounds,
nitrogen oxides, and carbon monoxide.
Energy Recovery Systems. EPA made changes to the methodology and
scope for the estimation of air emissions and energy savings from the
operation of energy recovery systems under Option 6. Theses changes
include revising the swine model farms, including the use of anaerobic
digesters for Large 1 swine operations under Option 6, and deleting the air
emissions estimates associated with energy recovery systems.
Boundary Conditions of Analysis. EPA also expanded the land
application losses for both ammonia and nitrous oxide to include both on-
and off-site land application activities, and added an estimation of fuel
usage to the energy impacts.
1-21
-------
1.5 Structure of Report
This report presents estimates of NWQI at Large and Medium CAFOs. Each
section discusses the methodology used to estimate the impacts and presents example
calculations. Estimates of NWQI are developed for each model farm considered by EPA. The
emissions for each pollutant are calculated on either a 1,000-pound animal weight basis, or on a
per-head basis. These emissions are converted to model farm estimates by multiplying by the
number of animals present at the model farm (and their weight, if necessary), as shown in the
following equation:
Emissionsannu,il = Emissionsammal x Number of head x Animal weight
where:
Emissionsannual = Annual pollutant emissions (Ib/yr) at the model
farm
Emissionsanimal = Annual emissions per 1,000-pound animal
(Ib/yr/1,000 Ib) or per head
Number of head = Number of head at the model farm
Animal Weight = Average weight of each animal (Ib/head).
Industry-level NWQI for each animal sector (i.e., beef, dairy, veal, swine, and
poultry) are estimated for Large and Medium CAFOs. The industry-level impacts are calculated
by multiplying the model farm impacts by the number of facilities represented by that model
farm. Section 6 presents these industry-level estimates.
The remainder of this report contains the following information:
Section 2.0 discusses the methodology and model farm results for air
emissions from the animal production area;
Section 3.0 discusses the methodology and model farm results for air
emissions from the application of manure to land;
Section 4.0 discusses the methodology and model farm results for air
emissions from vehicles;
1-22
-------
• Section 5.0 discusses the methodology and model farm results for energy
impacts;
• Section 6.0 summarizes the industry-wide non-water quality impacts for
two regulatory thresholds considered by EPA; and
• Section 7.0 provides a list of references used throughout this report.
The following appendices are also included:
Appendix A - Emission Factor Derivation and Detailed Calculations for
Air Emissions from Animal Confinement and Manure Management
Systems - Ammonia and Hydrogen Sulfide Emissions;
Appendix B - Detailed Calculations for Air Emissions from Animal
Confinement and Manure Management Systems - Greenhouse Gas
Emissions;
Appendix C - Detailed Calculations for Air Emissions from Animal
Confinement and Manure Management Systems - Energy Recovery
Systems;
Appendix D - Detailed Calculations for Air Emissions - Land Application
Activities;
Appendix E - Detailed Calculations for Emissions from Vehicles Used for
Off-Site Transportation;
Appendix F - Detailed Calculations for Emissions from Vehicles Used for
Composting;
Appendix G - Detailed Calculations for Energy Impacts - Land
Application; and
Appendix H - Detailed Calculations for Energy Impacts - Anaerobic
Digesters with Methane Recovery.
1-23
-------
2.0 AIR EMISSIONS FROM ANIMAL CONFINEMENT OPERATIONS
Animal feeding operations generate various types of animal wastes, including
manure (feces and urine), waste feed, water, bedding, dust, and wastewater. As these wastes
decompose, they generate air emissions, from the time they are generated through their
management and treatment on site. The rate of emission generation varies based on operational
variables (e.g., animal species, type of housing, waste management system) and weather
conditions (e.g., temperature, humidity, wind, time of release).
ERG evaluated air releases occurring from animal confinement areas and manure
management systems for animal feeding operations for baseline conditions and seven regulatory
options. Limited data exist on these releases to allow a complete analysis of all possible
compounds; therefore, ERG focused on the release of ammonia, hydrogen sulfide, and
greenhouse gases (methane and nitrous oxide) from animal confinement and waste management
systems and certain criteria air pollutants (carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, volatile organic
compounds, and particulate matter) from energy recovery systems.
This section presents the methodology and model farm results for the following
air emission calculations from animal confinement operations:
Section 2.1 - Ammonia and hydrogen sulfide from animal confinement
and waste management systems;
Section 2.2 - Greenhouse gases from animal confinement and waste
management systems; and
Section 2.3 - Criteria air pollutants from energy recovery systems.
2.1 Ammonia and Hydrogen Sulfide Emissions from Animal Confinement and
Manure Management Systems
Animal housing and manure management systems produce ammonia (NH3) and
hydrogen sulfide (H2S) emissions. This subsection presents the data inputs and the calculation
2-1
-------
methodology used to estimate ammonia and hydrogen sulfide emissions from confinement areas
and manure management systems as well as a summary of the model farm results. Appendix A
presents example calculations.
2.1.1
Data Inputs
To estimate ammonia and hydrogen sulfide emissions from confinement areas and
manure management systems ERG used a number of data inputs, including:
Animal weight;
Nitrogen excretion rate; and
Sulfur excretion rate.
Table 2.1-1 presents the waste characteristics data used in the ammonia and
hydrogen sulfide emission calculations for each of the animal types modeled. ERG obtained
nitrogen and sulfur excretion rate data from the Agricultural Waste Management Field Handbook
(USD A, 1996).
Table 2.1-1
Data Inputs for Calculating Emissions from Confinement Housing
Parameter
Animal Weight (Ibs)
Nitrogen as excreted
(lb/day/1000 Ib
animal)
Sulfur as excreted
(lb/day/1000 Ib
animal)
Value by Animal Type
Beef
877
0.34
NA
Heifer
550
0.31
NA
Veal
350
0.2
0.051
Dairy
Mature 1,350
Heifer 550
Calf 350
Mature 0.45
Heifer 0.31
CalfO.27
0.051
Swine
135
0.42
0.076
Broilers
2.0
1.1
NA
Layers
4.0
0.79
NA
Turkeys
15.0
0.74
NA
NA - Not Applicable.
2-2
-------
Information on the quantity of nitrogen lost from the animal confinement areas
and manure management systems is also needed to calculate ammonia emissions. The amount of
nitrogen present in the runoff from drylots is calculated in the model used to estimate compliance
costs for each regulatory option and documented in the Cost Methodology Report (U.S. EPA,
2002a). It is assumed that the solid concentration in the runoff is 1.5 percent (MWPS, 1987) and
that the concentration of each constituent is that of manure. Table 2.1-2 presents the nitrogen
expected to be lost in runoff from beef feedlots, heifer operations, and dairies.
Table 2.1-2
Nitrogen Runoff Losses from Beef, Heifer, and Dairy Drylots by Region
Animal Type
Beef
Heifer
Dairy
Nitrogen Runoff Losses (Ib/yr/head)
Central
7.64
6.07
3.69
Mid-Atlantic
24.71
19.64
11.93
Midwest
12.86
10.22
6.21
Pacific
26.69
21.22
12.89
South
29.38
23.36
14.19
2.1.2
Emissions Methodology
Basic ammonia and hydrogen sulfide emissions are calculated using Equation 2-1:
where:
Emissions (Ibs per head) = Manureexcreted x CF x EF
[2-1]
Manure
CF
EF
'Excreted
Nitrogen or sulfur excreted (Ib/yr/head)
Conversion factor (17/14 for converting N to NH3 and
17/16 for converting S to H2S)
Emission factor (percentage).
This subsection presents the calculation methodologies used to estimate ammonia
and/or hydrogen sulfide emissions from drylots, confinement houses, ponds and lagoons,
stockpiles, and composted manure. This subsection also presents the emission factors used in the
2-3
-------
calculations, the derivation of the emission factors, as well as any assumptions made concerning
the practices used at the animal operations.
Drylot Emissions
Drylots are used at beef feedlots, heifer operations, and dairies. All animals at
beef feedlots and heifer operations spend 100 percent of their time on drylots. At dairies, the
immature heifers and calves spend all of their time on drylots while the mature dairy cows spend
their time in the freestall barn and milking parlor. Nitrogen is present in the excreted manure and
is lost as ammonia through emissions to the air and through runoff from the drylot; no hydrogen
sulfide is emitted at the drylots. The drylot ammonia emission rate is estimated based on a
nitrogen emission factor and the amount of nitrogen in the manure excreted at the drylot. Some
of the nitrogen in the manure excreted at the drylot, however, is removed with the drylot runoff.
Equation 2-2 is used to determine the final amount of manure nitrogen at the drylot capable of
contributing to ammonia emissions.
where:
Manure Nitrogen^ lot (Ib/day/head)
[(Weightheifer x N Excretedheifer) + (Weightcalf x N Excretedcalf)] - Runoffmtrogen
Weightheifer
N Excretedheifer
Weightcalf
N Excretedcalf
Average live weight for heifers (Ib/head)
Nitrogen excretion rate for heifers (Ib/day)
Average live weight for calves (Ib/head)
Nitrogen excretion rate for calves (Ib/day)
Amount of nitrogen in the runoff from the drylot
(Ib/day/head).
Based on data collected by North Carolina State University (NCCES, 1994a,
Tables 6 and 8), 45 percent of the nitrogen content of beef and heifer waste is lost from the point
of generation to the point that it is scraped from unpaved lots. See Appendix A for more
information on the derivation of the emission factor. The drylot ammonia emission rate is
calculated using Equation 2-3.
2-4
-------
Ammonia Drylot Emission Rate (Ib/yr/head)
= Manure Nitrogen, b x EF
17 NH3
14 N
365 days
year
[2-3]
Table 2.1-3 presents the total ammonia emission rates calculated for beef, heifer,
and dairy drylots by region. The emission rates vary by region, as the amount of nitrogen
expected in runoff varies by region. Because none of the regulatory options affect the
management of waste in the housing areas for cattle, no difference in the ammonia emissions is
expected due to the regulatory options (i.e., baseline emissions equal regulatory option
emissions).
Table 2.1-3
Total Ammonia Emission Rates for Beef, Heifer and Dairy Drylots by Region
Animal Type
Beef
Heifer
Dairy
Drylot Ammonia Emission Rates (Ib/yr/head)
Central
50.20
26.64
11.38
Mid-Atlantic
29.47
10.16
1.37
Midwest
43.86
21.59
8.32
Pacific
27.06
8.24
0.20
South
23.79
5.64
0.20
Confinement House Emissions
ERG modeled a number of different confinement houses in this analysis to
accommodate the different animal types and different waste management methods. Ammonia
and hydrogen sulfide emissions from confinement houses are calculated using Equation 2-1 when
the emission factors represent a percentage:
Ammonia Housing Emission Rate (Ib/yr/head) = Manure Nitrogenexcreb
:ed
EF
17 NH3
14 N
2-5
-------
Hydrogen Sulfide Housing Emission Rate (Ib/yr/head) = Manure Sulfurexcreted x EF
where:
Manure Nitrogenexcreted
Manure Sulfur,,
EF
excreted
17 H9S
Z
16 S
Nitrogen excreted in manure (Ib/yr/head)
Sulfur excreted in manure (Ib/yr/head)
Emission factor (percentage).
When an emission factor represents an emissions rate in Ib/yr/head, that factor is
used as the emission rate for that animal type. Table 2.1-4 presents the emission factors used to
calculate ammonia and hydrogen sulfide emissions from confinement houses. Hydrogen sulfide
is produced by the anaerobic decomposition of manure. Therefore, hydrogen sulfide emissions
are only calculated for confinement houses with deep-pit systems, as these are the only houses
expected to have anaerobic conditions.
Table 2.1-4
Ammonia and Hydrogen Sulfide Emission Factors for Animal Confinement
Houses by Animal Type
Animal Type
Dairy
Veal
Swine
Broiler
Layer-Dry
Layer-Wet
Turkey
Operation Type
Flush Barn
Scrape Barn
House with Lagoon System
House with Deep-Pit System
House with Lagoon System
House with Deep-Pit System
Poultry House
Poultry House
Poultry House
Poultry House
Ammonia Emission Factor
(Ib/yr/head)
40.97
31.43
5.55
11.08
4.10
8.20
0.26
0.86
0.23
1.12
Hydrogen Sulfide Emission
Factor (Ib/yr/head)
NC
NC
NC
0.77
NC
0.40
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC - Not Calculated.
2-6
-------
Specific assumptions and waste management practices for each animal type
housed in confinement houses are described below. The following subsection also describes the
derivations of the emission factors presented in Table 2.1-4.
Dairies
As shown in Figures 1.3-2 and 1.3-3, the dairy housing for mature cattle is
assumed to be freestall barns with flush or scraped manure removal and flushed or hosed milking
parlors. Dairy barns using scrape systems to remove manure typically scrape the barn every day
(U.S. EPA, 2002a). As shown in Table 2.1-5, 0.13 pounds of nitrogen per day per 1,000 pounds
cattle (lb/day/1,000 Ib) is lost from fresh dairy manure as compared with scraped manure
(NCCES, 1994a Tables 1 and 6). EPA assumed that this nitrogen loss is primarily in the form of
ammonia. Table 2.1-5 also shows that ammonia concentrations in the scraped waste and in the
fresh manure are essentially the same, indicating that nitrogen is converting to ammonia as
manure begins to dry on the barn floor.
Table 2.1-5
Nitrogen Content of Fresh and Scraped Dairy Manure
Constituent
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen
Ammonia
Fresh
Manure3
Scraped
Manure3
Difference Between
Fresh and Scraped
Manure
(lb/day/1,000 Ib)
0.45
0.084
0.32
0.077
0.13
0.007
Percent Difference
Between Fresh
and Scraped
Manure
34
8
aNCCES, 1994a (Tables 1 and 6).
Dairy barns using flush systems to remove manure typically flush the barns
several times per day (U.S. EPA, 2002a). The loss of nitrogen to air for flush barns is expected to
be less than that for scraped barns. This nitrogen loss is expected to be in the form of ammonia.
Consequently, the confinement barn ammonia emission factors for flush and scrape dairies are
calculated separately. A loss of 17.9 percent of the nitrogen in manure is expected from the
2-7
-------
houses at flush dairies; an emission factor of 31.43 Ib NH3/yr/head is expected from houses at
scrape dairies. See Appendix A for more information on the derivation of these emission factors.
Veal and Swine Operations
Veal and swine operations are represented by two model farms for each animal
type: 1) a lagoon system where waste falls into gutters or a sloped underflooring that is flushed
several times a day into a lagoon and 2) a deep-pit system where waste collects in deep pits
below the pen. ERG used separate ammonia emission factors for these two systems. The
emission factor for deep-pit systems is higher than that used for lagoon systems because the
manure is expected to remain in the pit for a longer time period, allowing more time for the
ammonia to volatilize at the house. For lagoon systems, more ammonia volatilizes from the
lagoons once the manure is flushed there. Due to the anaerobic conditions in the veal and swine
barns with deep-pit systems, hydrogen sulfide emissions are also expected.
As described in the Cost Methodology Report (U.S. EPA, 2002a), it is assumed
that swine operations are located primarily in the Mid-Atlantic, Midwest, and Central regions. In
addition, it is assumed that swine operations in the Mid-Atlantic and Midwest regions use either
flushing/lagoon systems or deep-pit systems and that all operations in the Central region use
flushing systems with evaporative lagoons. The ammonia emission factor for swine houses with
lagoon and deep-pit systems are 4.1 Ib/yr/head and 8.2 Ib/yr/head, respectively. The hydrogen
sulfide emission factor for swine houses with deep-pit systems is 0.40 Ib/yr/head. See Appendix
A for more information on the derivation of these emission factors.
Due to the lack of data available on veal operations, emission factors were
transferred from swine operations. A loss of 17.9 percent of the nitrogen present in manure is
expected from veal houses with lagoon systems and a loss of 35.7 percent of nitrogen is expected
from veal houses with deep-pit systems. A loss of 11.1 percent of the sulfur present in veal
manure is lost as hydrogen sulfide from the confinement house. See Appendix A for more
information on the derivation of these emission factors.
2-8
-------
Poultry Operations
As shown in Figure 1.3-6, the majority of animal waste generated at poultry
operations (i.e., broiler, layer, turkey) is deposited and managed as part of the litter used in the
poultry houses. The operations use litter systems in which they place clean bedding (e.g.,
sawdust, wood shavings, or peanut shells) on the floor before adding the flock. Manure, spilled
water, and feed become mixed with the bedding while the birds are being raised in the houses.
The combination of these four components (i.e., bedding, manure, water, and feed) is referred to
as poultry litter. Layer operations typically do not use a litter system and either scrape or flush
waste from the poultry house floors. The ammonia emission factor for broiler houses is 0.26
Ib/yr/head, for layer-dry houses is 0.86 Ib/yr/head, layer-wet houses is 0.23 Ib/yr/head, and turkey
houses is 1.12 Ib/yr/head. See Appendix A for more information on the derivation of these
emission factors.
Pond and Lagoon Emissions
Anaerobic lagoons and waste storage ponds are major components of the waste
management systems at animal feeding operations. These systems utilize microbes that
biodegrade organic nitrogen to ammonium (NH4+) and ammonia (NH3). Ammonia continuously
volatilizes from the surface of lagoons and ponds. For this analysis, it is assumed that turkey and
broiler operations do not operate waste storage ponds or lagoons; therefore, ammonia emissions
are calculated for only beef feedlots, dairies, and heifer, veal, swine, and wet layer operations.
The sulfur content of swine, dairy, veal, and layer waste also results in hydrogen sulfide
emissions from lagoons.
Many operations currently have settling basins or would be required to install
them under several of the regulatory options. Settling basins are estimated to remove 50 percent
of the manure solids generated at an operation. The remaining 50 percent of the manure solids
collect in the pond or lagoon. Settling basins are estimated to have a 12 percent removal
efficiency for nitrogen and a 50 percent removal efficiency for sulfur; therefore 88 percent of the
nitrogen excreted in manure and 50 percent of the sulfur excreted is expected to collect in the
2-9
-------
storage pond or lagoon. In this analysis, the percentage of nitrogen in a pond or lagoon converted
to ammonia and the percentage of sulfur converted to hydrogen sulfide is 43.6 percent and 34.1
percent, respectively. See Appendix A for more information on the derivation of these emission
factors.
For Option 5, swine and veal wastewater is stored in a covered lagoon, which
decreases the amount of nitrogen lost from the lagoon. ERG assumed that 2 percent of the
nitrogen entering these covered lagoons is lost as ammonia in biogas (and ultimately transformed
to dinitrogen gas and nitrogen oxides).
For Option 6, dairy and swine wastewater is treated in an anaerobic digester
before being released to a secondary storage lagoon. Typically, little to no ammonia gas is
present in digester gas collected for energy recovery. According to Jewell, et al. (1997), the total
nitrogen in the waste stream entering the digester and in the treated effluent (i.e., exiting the
digester and entering the secondary storage lagoon) are equal; thus, it is assumed that the quantity
of ammonia entering the secondary storage lagoon is the same as that entering the primary lagoon
for the other options. As a result, the same ammonia emissions are generated under Option 6 as
are generated under the other options.
For operations without solids separation, Equation 2-4 is used to calculate the
emission factor for ammonia emissions from ponds and lagoons.
17 NH,
EF (no settling) (Ib/yr/head) = Nitrogenmput (Ib/yr/head) x 0.436 x 1 [2-4]
where:
Nitrogeninput = Amount of nitrogen entering the pond or lagoon (Ib/yr-
head) from runoff and/or from the confinement house
0.436 = Fraction of nitrogen in the pond converted to ammonia.
For operations with solids separation, Equation 2-5 is used to calculate the
emission factor for ammonia emissions from ponds and lagoons.
2-10
-------
EF (with settling) (Ib/yr/head) = Nitrogenm (Ib/yr/head) x 0.88 x 0.436
17 NH3
14 N
[2-5]
where:
Nitrogeninput
0.88
0.436
Amount of nitrogen entering the pond or lagoon (Ib/yr-
head) from runoff and/or from the confinement house
Fraction of nitrogen entering the pond from solids
separation
Fraction of nitrogen in the pond converted to ammonia.
Table 2.1-6 presents the methodology used to calculate the amount of nitrogen
entering the pond or lagoon by animal type and operation.
Table 2.1-6
Nitrogen Inputs to Ponds and Lagoons
Animal Type
Dairy
Veal
Swine
Layer-Wet
Operation Type
Flush
Scrape
Lagoon System
Lagoon System
Flush
Nitrogen Input Methodology
N in barn - N emitted as NH3 + N in milking parlor + N in runoff
N in milking parlor + N in runoff
N in barn - N emitted as NH3
N in Barn - N emitted as NH3
N in house - N emitted as NH3
For operations without solids separation, hydrogen sulfide emission factors are
calculated using Equation 2-6:
EF (no settling) (Ib/yr/head) = Sulfur ut (Ib/yr/head) x 0.341
17 H2S
16 S
[2-6]
where:
Sulfur,
0.341
input
Amount of sulfur entering the lagoon
Fraction of sulfur converted to hydrogen sulfide.
2-11
-------
For operations with solids separation, hydrogen sulfide emission factors are
calculated using Equation 2-7:
EF (with settling) (Ib/yr/head) = Sulfur^ (Ib/yr/head) x 0.50 x 0.341 x ^ ^ [2-7]
17 H2S
16 S
where:
Sulfurinput = Amount of sulfur entering the lagoon
0.50 = Fraction of sulfur entering the pond from solids separation
0.341 = Fraction of sulfur converted to hydrogen sulfide.
For this analysis it is assumed that all of the sulfur generated at the barn is sent to
either solids separation or to the lagoon. None is emitted as hydrogen sulfide. Therefore, the
amount of sulfur entering the lagoon is equal to the amount of sulfur excreted by the animals.
Tables 2.1-7 and 2.1-8 present the ammonia and hydrogen sulfide emission factors
by animal type and operation type.
Specific assumptions regarding ponds and lagoons for each animal type are
described below. The following subsection also describes the derivations of the emission factors
presented in Tables 2.1-7 and 2.1-8.
Beef Feedlots and Heifer Operations
At beef feedlots and heifer operations, only the runoff from the drylot enters the
storage ponds. At baseline, the beef feedlots and heifer operations are grouped into high-,
medium-, and low-requirement operations, reflecting the status of their waste management
system in controlling effluent. It is assumed that 100 percent of low-requirement operations
already have a settling basin, 80 percent of medium-requirement operations have a settling basin
in place, and 40 percent of high-requirement operations have a settling basin in place. These
requirements are discussed in more detail in the Cost Methodology Report (U.S. EPA, 2002a).
2-12
-------
Table 2.1-7
Ammonia Emission Factors for Ponds and Lagoons by
Animal Type and by Region
Animal Type
Beef
Heifer
Dairy-Flush
Dairy-Scrape
Veal
Swine - Grow
Finish
Swine - Farrow-
to-Finish
Layers-Wet
Operation Type
Solids Separation
No Solids Separation
Solids Separation
No Solids Separation
Solids Separation
No Solids Separation
Solids Separation
No Solids Separation
Solids Separation
No Solids Separation
No Solids Separation
No Solids Separation
Ammonia Emission Factors (Ib/yr/head)
Central
3.6
4.0
2.8
3.2
89.6
101.5
17.5
19.6
9.8
10.0
10.0
0.5
Mid-Atlantic
11.5
13.1
9.2
10.4
93.9
105.9
21.8
23.9
9.8
10.0
10.0
0.5
Midwest
6.0
6.8
4.8
5.4
90.9
102.8
18.8
20.9
9.8
10.0
10.0
0.5
Pacific
12.4
14.1
9.9
11.2
94.4
106.4
22.3
24.4
9.8
10.0
10.0
0.5
South
13.7
15.6
10.9
12.4
95.1
107.0
23.0
25.1
9.8
10.0
10.0
0.5
Table 2.1-8
Hydrogen Sulfide Emission Factors for Ponds and Lagoons by Animal Type
Operation Type
Solids Separation
No Solids Separation
Hydrogen Sulfide Emission Factors by Animal Type (Ib/yr/head)
Dairy - Flush
4.6
9.1
Dairy - Scrape
0.7
1.4
Veal
1.2
NC
Swine
NA
1.2
Layer-Wet
NA
0.07
NA - Not applicable.
NC - Not calculated.
2-13
-------
Dairies
Both scrape and flush dairies, send the wastewater from flushing the parlors to
the lagoon, along with runoff from the drylot. Flush dairies also send wastewater from flushing
the barn to the lagoon. At baseline, it is assumed that 33 percent of Large and 20 percent of
Medium operations have a settling basin in place prior to the lagoon. These requirements are
discussed in more detail in the Cost Methodology Report (U.S. EPA, 2002a).
Veal Operations
Only veal operations with flush systems have lagoons in the production area;
therefore, there are no lagoon emission factors for veal operations with deep-pit storage systems.
At flush veal operations, only the wastewater from flushing the barn is sent to the lagoon. It is
assumed that all lagoon veal operations have a settling basin in place at baseline and under all
regulatory options.
Swine Operations
Only swine operations with flush systems have lagoons in the production area;
therefore, there are no lagoon emission factors for swine operations with deep-pit storage
systems. At swine operations with flush systems, only wastewater from washing the storage pits
is sent to the lagoon. For this analysis, it is assumed that swine operations do not have solids
separation.
Layers-Wet Operations
At poultry operations using a wet layer system, waste is flushed out of the layer
house and stored in a lagoon. For this analysis, it is assumed that wet layer poultry operations do
not have solids separation.
2-14
-------
Composting Emissions
Composting is considered under Option 5 A for beef feedlots, heifer operations,
and dairies. Under Option 5A, the manure scraped from barns and drylots and the separated
solids from the settling basin are composted. Ammonia emission factors for composting are
based on an average air loss of 30 percent of the nitrogen in the compost over three years
(Eghball, 1997). For beef feedlots, heifer operations, and flush dairies, the total amount of
nitrogen entering the compost is calculated by adding the nitrogen in the separated solids (as
TKN) and the nitrogen in the manure scraped from barns and drylots. For scrape dairies, the
calculation includes the nitrogen in the manure that is scraped from the confinement barn.
The compost ammonia emissions are calculated using Equation 2-8:
17 NH,
Compost Emissions (Ib/yr) = NitrogenCompost (Ib/yr) x 0.30 x 1 [2-8]
where:
NitrogenCompost = Amount of nitrogen sent to composting
0.30 = Fraction of nitrogen lost from composting.
Table 2.1-9 presents the methodology used to calculate the amount of nitrogen
sent to composting by animal type.
2-15
-------
Table 2.1-9
Amount of Nitrogen Sent to Composting by Animal Type
Animal Type
Beef
Heifer
Dairy - Flush
Dairy - Scrape
Nitrogen Input Methodology
N entering solids separator from runoff + N scraped from drylot
N entering solids separator from runoff + N scraped from drylot
N entering solids separator (N excreted in Barn - N emitted as NH3
Parlor) + N scraped from drylot
+ N excreted in Milking
N entering solids separator (N excreted in Milking Parlor) + N scraped from drylot + N
scraped from barn (N excreted in Barn - N emitted as NH3)
The nitrogen content in manure that is scraped from drylots and placed in the
compost is 55 percent of what was originally excreted, because 45 percent was emitted as NH3
from the drylot, as described in the Drylot Emission section.
The following general equation is used to calculate the nitrogen in separated
solids (Nitrogenseparator):
where:
TKN in Separated Solids (SS) = I°P* N into SSx % N Removed
TKN in Separated Solids = Nitrogen in solids removed from the
separator (Nitrogenseparator)
Input N into SS = Amount of nitrogen entering the solids
separator
% N Removed = Separated solids from the separator
estimated to have a nitrogen content that is
12 percent of the nitrogen that enters the
separator (Van Horn, 1998).
Table 2.1-10 presents the composting emission factors by animal type and region.
2-16
-------
Table 2.1-10
Ammonia Composting Emission Factors for Beef Feedlots, Heifer
Operations, and Dairies by Region
Animal Type
Beef
Heifer
Dairy - Flush
Dairy - Scrape
Ammonia Composting Emission Factors (Ib/yr/head)
Central
22.41
12.73
14.03
66.50
Mid-Atlantic
23.16
13.33
14.03
66.50
Midwest
22.64
12.92
14.03
66.50
Pacific
23.24
13.40
14.03
66.50
South
23.36
13.49
14.03
66.50
Stockpile Emissions
For this analysis, it is assumed that beef feedlots, dairies, and heifer and veal
operations stockpile animal waste under all regulatory options. It is also assumed that the
amount of material stockpiled does not change from current practices under any of the regulatory
options, except Option 5A. Under Option 5A, all waste that is currently stockpiled will be
composted; therefore, no ammonia emissions for stockpiles are calculated for Option 5A.
Stockpile emission factors are calculated using the amount of nitrogen separated
out in the settling basin (where applicable) and the nitrogen in the manure scraped from the
drylot and/or the confinement barn. Under Options 1, 2, 5 A, and 7, it is assumed that these
wastes are stockpiled on the ground. Under Options 3 and 4, it is assumed that the manure
scraped from the drylots is stockpiled on the ground, and the wastes from the barn and the
separated solids from the settling basins are stockpiled on an impermeable pad (e.g., concrete
pad).
Although concrete pads have negligible leachate, the volatilization potential
remains almost the same as the stockpile; therefore, for a specific region, the percentage of
ammonia that volatilizes from stockpiles and concrete pads is the same. The negligible leachate
from concrete pads results in a slightly higher nitrogen content of waste for land application.
2-17
-------
The stockpile ammonia emission rates used in this analysis are based on
information from a literature review (Sutton et al., 2001), which indicated that 20 to 40 percent
of nitrogen is lost from solids manure storage. The nitrogen loss is related to the amount of time
the material is stored. For this analysis, an emission factor of 20 percent was used.
For beef feedlots, heifer operations, and flush dairies, the total amount of nitrogen
entering the stockpile is calculated by adding the nitrogen in the separated solids (as TKN) and
the nitrogen in the manure scraped from the drylots. For scrape dairies, the calculation includes
the amount of nitrogen in the manure scraped from the confinement barn. At veal operations,
only separated solids are stockpiled; therefore, the amount of nitrogen entering the stockpile is
equal to the amount of nitrogen in the separated solids (as TKN). The stockpile ammonia
emission factors are calculated using Equation 2-10:
17 NIL,
Stockpile Emissions = Nitrogenstockpile (Ib/yr) x 0.20 x 1 [2-10]
where:
Nitrogenstockpile = Amount of nitrogen entering the stockpile
0.20 = Fraction of ammonia emitted from the stockpile.
Table 2.1-11 presents the methodology used to calculate the amount of nitrogen
sent to the stockpile by animal type.
The amount of nitrogen going to the stockpile from drylots (beef, heifer, and
dairies) and confinement barns (scrape dairies) is equal to that going to the compost pile under
Option 5A. The nitrogen content in manure that is scraped from drylots and placed in the
stockpile is 55 percent of what was originally excreted, because 45 percent was emitted as NH3
from the drylot. For all animal types, 12 percent of the nitrogen that is flushed to the settling
basin will be separated and sent to the stockpile.
2-18
-------
Table 2.1-11
Amount of Nitrogen Sent to the Stockpile by Animal Type
Animal Type
Beef
Heifer
Dairy - Flush
Dairy - Scrape
Nitrogen Input Methodology
N entering solids separator from runoff + N scraped from drylot
N entering solids separator from runoff + N scraped from drylot
N entering solids separator (N excreted in barn - N emitted as NH3 + N excreted in milking
parlor) + N scraped from drylot
N entering solids separator (N excreted in milking parlor) + N scraped
scraped from barn (N excreted in barn - N emitted as NH3)
from drylot + N
Table 2.1-12 presents the ammonia stockpile emission factors by animal type and
region.
Table 2.1-12
Ammonia Stockpile Emission Factors for Beef Feedlots, Dairies, and Heifer
and Operations by Region
Animal Type
Beef
Heifer
Dairy - Flush
Dairy - Scrape
Veal - Flush
Veal - Scrape
Ammonia Stockpile Emission Factors (Ib/yr/head)
Central
0.22
0.18
5.48
40.46
0.61
0.48
Mid-Atlantic
0.72
0.57
5.48
40.46
0.61
0.48
Midwest
0.37
0.30
5.48
40.46
0.61
0.48
Pacific
0.78
0.62
5.48
40.46
0.61
0.48
South
0.86
0.68
5.48
40.46
0.61
0.48
2.1.3
Calculation of Model Farm Results
Using the methodology outlined above, emissions are calculated for each animal
at a model farm in each region for each regulatory option (as defined in Section 1).
2-19
-------
Ammonia Emissions from Beef Feedlots. Heifer Operations, and Dairies
Table 2.1-13 presents the ammonia emission estimates by regulatory option and
model farm for beef feedlots, heifer operations, and dairies.
Baseline:
At baseline, the beef feedlots and heifer operations are grouped into high-,
medium-, and low-requirement operations, reflecting the status of their waste management
system in controlling effluent. It is assumed that 100 percent of low-requirement operations
already have a settling basin, 80 percent of medium-requirement operations have a settling basin
in place, and 40 percent of high-requirement operations have a settling basin in place. Therefore,
when estimating baseline model farm emissions, emission factors calculated for both operations
with separation and operations without separation must be used. The emissions are generated for
high-, medium-, and low- requirement operations separately, then summed. Equation 2-1 1 is
used to estimate emissions from a high- requirement operation:
settling + EFStockpIle wffl> settling + EFpond WIth settlmg) * AV&
High Requirement Model Farm Ammonia Emissions (ton/yr)
< % Settling]
[2-11]
x Avg. Head x (I - % Settling)]
it settling
- 2,000 Ib/ton
: settling + EFStodcpIle w.thout settling + EFpond WIthout settlmg X Av& Head X d ~ % Settling)l
Equation 2-11 is also used to estimate emissions from medium- and low-
requirement operations. The sum of the high-, medium-, and low-requirement operations
emissions is equal to the total emissions expected at baseline.
2-20
-------
Table 2.1-13
Ammonia Emissions from Beef Feedlots, Heifer Operations, and Dairies by
Regulatory Option and Model Farm (Ib/yr)
Animal
Type
Size Class
Regulatory
Option
Region
Central
Mid-
Atlantic
Midwest
Pacific
South
Beef - Large CAFOs
Large 2
Large 1
Baseline
Options 1-4, 6-7
Option 5A
Baseline
Options 1-4, 6-7
Option 5A
1,402,984
1,397,884
1,972,489
99,615
99,253
140,051
1,096,383
1,079,879
1,660,927
77,846
76,674
177,930
1,309,170
1,300,581
1,877,157
92,954
92,344
133,283
1,060,711
1,042,882
1,624,678
75,313
74,047
115,356
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Beef - Medium CAFOs
Medium 3
Medium 2
Medium 1
Baseline
Options 1-4, 6-7
Option 5A
Baseline
Options 1-4, 6-7
Option 5A
Baseline
Options 1-4, 6-7
Option 5A
41,507
41,356
58,356
29,902
29,794
42,040
20,020
19,947
28,147
32,436
31,948
49,138
23,368
23,016
35,400
15,645
15,410
23,701
38,732
38,477
55,535
27,903
27,720
40,009
18,681
18,559
26,786
31,381
30,853
48,066
22,607
22,227
34,627
15,136
14,882
23,184
29,954
29,373
46,615
21,579
21,161
33,582
14,448
14,168
22,484
Heifer - Large CAFOs
Large 1
Baseline
Options 1-4, 6-7
Option 5A
44,695
44,460
63,296
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
28,935
28,114
47,281
N/A
N/A
N/A
Heifer - Medium CAFOs
Medium 3
Medium 2
Baseline
Options 1-4, 6-7
Option 5A
Baseline
Options 1-4, 6-7
Option 5A
26,072
25,935
36,923
18,623
18,525
26,373
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
23,552
23,322
34,362
16,823
16,658
24,544
16,879
16,400
27,581
12,056
11,714
19,701
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
2-21
-------
Table 2.1-13 (Continued)
Animal
Type
Size Class
Regulatory
Option
Region
Central
Mid-
Atlantic
Midwest
Pacific
South
Heifer - Medium CAFOs (cont.)
Medium 1
Baseline
Options 1-4, 6-7
Option 5A
11,919
11,856
16,879
N/A
N/A
N/A
10,767
10,661
15,708
7,716
7,497
12,608
N/A
N/A
N/A
Dairy - Large CAFOs
Large 1
Baseline
Options 1-4, 6-7
Option 5A
198,925
194,034
222,939
172,905
169,286
214,868
178,506
174,888
220,469
189,915
185,024
213,929
190,897
186,006
214,911
Dairy - Medium CAFOs
Medium 3
Medium 2
Medium 1
Baseline
Options 1-4, 6-7
Option 5A
Baseline
Options 1-4, 6-7
Option 5A
Baseline
Options 1-4, 6-7
Option 5A
76,230
74,417
93,542
54,033
52,748
66,305
31,812
31,056
39,037
65,209
64,033
90,156
46,221
45,388
63,904
27,213
26,722
37,624
67,559
66,383
92,506
47,887
47,054
65,570
28,194
27,703
38,605
77,449
70,636
89,762
51,354
500,069
63,625
30,235
29,478
37,460
72,861
71,048
90,174
51,646
550,361
63,917
30,407
29,650
37,631
N/A - Not Applicable
2-22
-------
The emissions from flush dairies and scrape dairies are both calculated using the
different production area emission factors for each dairy type. The emissions from flush dairies
and scrape dairies are then summed to calculate the total dairy emissions from the production
area.
At baseline, it is assumed that 20 percent of Medium and 33 percent of Large
operations have a settling basin in place. Therefore, the emission factors for operations with a
settling basin and without a settling basin are both needed to calculate baseline emissions, using a
methodology similar to that used for beef feedlots and heifer operations shown above. The
drylot, house, lagoon, and stockpile emission factors are used in these calculations.
Options 1-4, 6-7:
For all regulatory options, it is assumed that all beef feedlots, heifer operations,
and dairies have a settling basin in place. Therefore, only the emission factors for operations
with separation are used in Equation 2-12.
Model Farm Ammonia Emissions (ton/yr)
[2-12]
= [(Drylot EF + Stockpile w/separation EF + Pond w/separation EF) x Avg Head ^ (2,000 Ib/ton)
The model farm emissions from flush and scrape dairies are calculated separately,
then summed to get the total model farm emissions from the production area.
Option 5A:
For Option 5 A, it is assumed that all beef feedlots, heifer operations, and dairies
compost their waste rather than sending it to a stockpile, as shown in Equation 2-13.
Model Farm Ammonia Emissions (ton/yr)
[2-13]
= [(Drylot EF + Pond w/separation EF + Compost EF) x Avg Head - 2,000 Ib/ton
2-23
-------
Again, the model farm emissions from flush and scrape dairies are calculated
separately, then summed to get the total model farm emissions from the production area.
Ammonia Emissions from Veal. Swine and Layer Operations
Table 2.1-14 presents the ammonia emissions from veal, swine, and layer
operations.
Baseline and Options 1-4, 6-7:
Veal, swine, and layer operations have both lagoon operations and deep-pit
operations. For each animal type, the emissions from the lagoon operations and the deep-pit
operations are calculated using the different production area emission factors specific to each
type of operation. The lagoon and deep-pit emissions are then summed to calculate the total
emissions from the production area. The house, lagoon, and stockpile emission factors are used
to calculate veal emissions, and the house and lagoon emission factors are used to calculate
swine and layer emissions. The methodology used to generate the emissions is similar to that
used for beef feedlots, heifer operations, and dairies, as presented in Equation 2-14.
Model Farm Ammonia Emissions (ton/yr) = (House EF + Lagoon EF) x Avg Head -^ 2,000 Ib/ton [2-14]
Option 5:
Under Option 5, all lagoons are covered and the gas emitted is collected and
flared. Therefore, no ammonia emissions are generated from the lagoons under this option. Only
the housing emission factors are used to calculate the model farm emissions as presented in
Equation 2-15.
Model Farm Ammonia Emissions (ton/yr) = (House EF) x Avg Head -^ 2,000 Ib/ton [2-15]
2-24
-------
Table 2.1-14
Ammonia Emissions from Veal, Swine, and Layer Operations by Regulatory
Option and Model Farm (Ib/yr)
Animal
Type
Size Class
Regulatory
Option
Region
Central
Mid-
Atlantic
Midwest
Pacific
South
Swine - Grow Finish - Large CAFOs
Large 2
Large 1
Baseline
Options 1-4, 6-7
Option 5A
Baseline
Options 1-4, 6-7
Option 5A
414,385
414,385
120,495
48,716
48,716
14,166
112,206
112,206
45,624
44,856
44,856
18,224
106,785
105,785
65,874
36,092
36,092
22,410
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Swine - Grow Finish - Medium CAFOs
Medium 3
Medium 2
Medium 1
Baseline
Options 1-4, 6-7
Option 5A
Baseline
Options 1-4, 6-7
Option 5A
Baseline
Options 1-4, 6-7
Option 5A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
27,554
27,355
11,206
19,185
19,185
7,807
12,158
12,158
4,935
22,441
22,441
13,925
15,021
15,021
9,325
9,503
9,503
5,905
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Swine - Farrow-to-Finish - Large CAFOs
Large 2
Large 1
Baseline
Options 1-4, 6-7
Option 5A
Baseline
Options 1-4, 6-7
Option 5A
117,002
117,002
34,022
51,127
51,127
14,867
221,024
221,024
84,318
45,298
45,298
17,291
149,999
149,999
87,824
37,376
37,376
21,892
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Swine - Farrow-to-Finish - Medium CAFOs
Medium 3
Baseline
Options 1-4, 6-7
Option 5A
N/A
N/A
N/A
28,014
28,014
10,623
23,359
23,359
13,677
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
2-25
-------
Table 2.1-14 (Continued)
Animal
Type
Size Class
Regulatory
Option
Region
Central
Mid-
Atlantic
Midwest
Pacific
South
Swine - Farrow-to-Finish - Medium CAFOs (cont.)
Medium 2
Medium 1
Baseline
Options 1-4, 6-7
Option 5A
Baseline
Options 1-4, 6-7
Option 5A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
19,595
19,595
7,481
10,933
10,933
4,161
15,847
15,847
9,279
8,836
8,836
5,173
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Veal - Medium CAFOs
Medium 3
Medium 2
Medium 1
Baseline
Options 1-4, 6-7
Option 4
Baseline
Options 1-4, 6-7
Option 5A
Baseline
Options 1-4, 6-7
Option 5A
15,675
15,675
8,408
7,838
7,838
4,204
5,806
5,806
3,114
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
5,806
5,806
3,114
15,675
15,675
8,408
7,838
7,838
4,204
5,806
5,806
3,114
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Layer - Dry - Large CAFOs
Large 2
Large 1
Baseline
Options 1-4, 6-7
Option 5A
Baseline
Options 1-4, 6-7
Option 5A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
968,949
968,949
968,949
203,039
203,039
203,039
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
968,949
968,949
968,949
203,039
203,039
203,039
Layer - Dry - Medium CAFOs
Medium 3
Medium 2
Baseline
Options 1-4, 6-7
Option 4
Baseline
Options 1-4, 6-7
Option 5A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
72,889
72,889
72,889
42,266
42,266
42,266
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
72,889
72,889
72,889
42,266
42,266
42,266
2-26
-------
Table 2.1-14 (Continued)
Animal
Type
Size Class
Regulatory
Option
Region
Central
Mid-
Atlantic
Midwest
Pacific
South
Layer - Dry - Medium CAFOs (cont.)
Medium 1
Baseline
Options 1-4, 6-7
Option 5A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
28,444
28,444
28,444
N/A
N/A
N/A
28,444
28,444
28,444
Layer - Wet - Large CAFOs
Large 1
Baseline
Options 1-4, 6-7
Option 5A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
64,298
64,298
19,928
Layer - Wet - Medium CAFOs
Medium 3
Baseline
Options 1-4, 6-7
Option 5A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
2,704
2,704
838
N/A - Not Applicable.
2-27
-------
Ammonia Emissions from Broiler and Turkey Operations
Table 2.1-15 presents the ammonia emissions from broiler and turkey operations.
Baseline and 1-7:
Because broiler and turkey operations have dry housing and do not operate
lagoons, stockpiles, or compost piles, the emissions from the production area do not vary by
option.
Model Farm Ammonia Emissions (ton/yr) = House EF x Avg Head -^ 2,000 Ib/ton [2-16]
Hydrogen Sulfide Emissions from Dairy. Veal Swine, and Layer Operations
Lagoon hydrogen sulfide emission factors have been identified for the following
animal types: dairy-flush, veal-flush, layer-wet, and swine-lagoon. A house hydrogen sulfide
emission factor has been identified for veal-pit and swine-pit operations. Model farm hydrogen
sulfide emissions are calculated using these emission factors and the average head numbers for
each model farm. Table 2.1-16 presents the hydrogen sulfide emissions from dairies, veal,
swine, and layer operations.
Daii
At baseline, it is assumed that 20 percent of Medium and 33 percent of Large
operations have a settling basin in place. Therefore, the emission factors for operations with a
settling basin and without a settling basin are both needed to calculate baseline emissions. The
methodology is similar to that used for calculating ammonia emissions.
2-28
-------
Table 2.1-15
Ammonia Emissions from Broiler and Turkey Operations by Regulatory
Option and Model Farm (Ib/yr)
Animal
Type
Size Class
Regulatory
Option
Region
Central
Mid-
Atlantic
Midwest
Pacific
South
Broiler - Large CAFOs
Large 1
Baseline
Options 1-4, 6-7
Option 5A
N/A
N/A
N/A
31,384
31,384
31,384
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
31,087
31,087
31,087
Broiler - Medium CAFOs
Medium 3
Medium 2
Medium 1
Baseline
Options 1-4, 6-7
Option 5A
Baseline
Options 1-4, 6-7
Option 5A
Baseline
Options 1-4, 6-7
Option 5A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
21,163
21,163
21,163
13,523
13,523
13,523
10,278
10,278
10,278
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
21,221
21,221
21,221
13,465
13,465
13,465
10,233
10,233
10,233
Turkey - Large CAFOs
Large 1
Baseline
Options 1-4, 6-7
Option 5A
N/A
N/A
N/A
148,247
148,247
148,247
148,247
148,247
148,247
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Turkey - Medium CAFOs
Medium 3
Medium 2
Medium 1
Baseline
Options 1-4, 6-7
Option 4
Baseline
Options 1-4, 6-7
Option 5A
Baseline
Options 1-4, 6-7
Option 5A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
50,658
50,658
50,658
34,557
34,557
34,557
20,491
20,491
20,491
50,658
50,658
50,658
34,557
34,557
34,557
20,491
20,491
20,491
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A - Not Applicable.
2-29
-------
Table 2.1-16
Hydrogen Sulfide Emissions from Dairies, Veal, Swine, and Layer Operations
by Regulatory Option and Model Farm (Ib/yr)
Animal
Type
Size Class
Regulatory
Option
Region
Central
Mid-
Atlantic
Midwest
Pacific
South
Dairy - Large CAFOs
Large 1
Baseline
Options 1-4, 6-7
Option 5A
8,575
5,173
5,173
6,260
3,775
3,775
6,260
3,775
3,775
8,575
5,173
5,173
8,575
5,173
5,173
Dairy - Medium CAFOs
Medium 3
Medium 2
Medium 1
Baseline
Options 1-4, 6-7
Option 5A
Baseline
Options 1-4, 6-7
Option 5A
Baseline
Options 1-4, 6-7
Option 5A
2,829
1,584
1,584
2,005
1,123
1,123
1,181
661
661
1,783
998
998
1,264
707
707
744
416
416
1,783
998
998
1,264
707
707
744
416
416
2,829
1,584
1,584
2,005
1,123
1,123
1,181
661
661
2,829
1,584
1,584
2,005
1,123
1,123
1,181
661
661
Swine - Grow Finish - Large CAFOs
Large 2
Large 1
Baseline
Options 1-4, 6-7
Option 5A
Baseline
Options 1-4, 6-7
Option 5A
35,267
35,267
0
4,146
4,146
0
8,861
8,861
872
3,543
3,543
347
7,144
7,144
2,355
2,441
2,441
799
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Swine - Grow Finish - Medium CAFOs
Medium 3
Medium 2
Baseline
Options 1-4, 6-7
Option 5A
Baseline
Options 1-4, 6-7
Option 5A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
2,176
2,176
214
1,515
1,515
149
1,518
1,518
496
1,016
1,016
332
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
2-30
-------
Table 2.1-16 (Continued)
Animal
Type
Size Class
Regulatory
Option
Region
Central
Mid-
Atlantic
Midwest
Pacific
South
Swine - Grow Finish - Medium CAFOs (cont.)
Medium 1
Baseline
Options 1-4, 6-7
Option 5A
N/A
N/A
N/A
961
961
94
642
642
211
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Swine - Farrow-to-Finish - Large CAFOs
Large 2
Large 1
Baseline
Options 1-4, 6-7
Option 5A
Baseline
Options 1-4, 6-7
Option 5A
9,958
9,958
0
4,351
4,351
0
17,749
17,749
1,344
3,637
3,637
276
10,426
10,426
2,965
2,597
2,597
739
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Swine - Farrow-to-Finish - Medium CAFOs
Medium 3
Medium 2
Medium 1
Baseline
Options 1-4, 6-7
Option 5A
Baseline
Options 1-4, 6-7
Option 5A
Baseline
Options 1-4, 6-7
Option 5A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
2,253
2,253
166
1,573
1,573
120
878
878
66
1,624
1,624
462
1,101
1,101
313
614
614
175
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Veal - Medium CAFOs
Medium 3
Medium 2
Medium 1
Baseline
Options 1-4, 6-7
Option 5A
Baseline
Options 1-4, 6-7
Option 5A
Baseline
Options 1-4, 6-7
Option 5A
1,135
1,135
274
568
568
137
420
420
101
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
420
420
101
1,135
1,135
274
568
568
137
420
420
101
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
2-31
-------
Table 2.1-16 (Continued)
Animal
Type
Size Class
Regulatory
Option
Region
Central
Mid-
Atlantic
Midwest
Pacific
South
Layer - Wet - Large CAFOs
Large 1
Baseline
Options 1-4, 6-7
Option 5A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
6,242
6,242
0
Layer - Wet - Medium CAFOs
Medium 3
Medium 2
Medium 1
Baseline
Options 1-4, 6-7
Option 4
Baseline
Options 1-4, 6-7
Option 5A
Baseline
Options 1-4, 6-7
Option 5A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
257
257
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
N/A - Not Applicable.
2-32
-------
Baseline:
Model Farm Hydrogen Sulfide Emissions (ton/yr)
= [(Lagoon EFwith settlmg) x Avg Head x % Separation] + [2-17]
[(Lagoon EFwithout settlmg) x Avg Head x (l - % Separation)] •*• 2,000 Ib/ton
Options 1-7:
All dairies are assumed to have a settling basin and emissions are calculated as
shown in Equation 2-18.
Model Farm Hydrogen Sulfide Emissions (ton/yr)
[2-18]
= Lagoon EF (Ib/yr-head) x Avg Head - 2,000 Ib/ton
Veal and Swine
For each animal type, the emissions from the lagoon operations and the deep-pit
operations are calculated using the different production area emission factors specific to each
type of operation. The lagoon and deep-pit emissions are then summed to calculate the total
emissions from the production area using Equation 2-19. Under Option 5, the lagoon is covered;
therefore, there are no emissions from the lagoon and emissions are only calculated for the deep-
pit house.
Baseline and Options 1-4, 6-7:
Model Farm Hydrogen Sulfide Emissions (ton/yr)
[2-19]
= (Lagoon EF + House-Pit EF) x Avg Head - 2,000 Ib/ton
Option 5:
Model Farm Hydrogen Sulfide Emissions (ton/yr) = House-Pit EF x Avg Head -^ 2,000 Ib/ton
2-33
-------
Wet Layers
No hydrogen sulfide emissions are expected from dry layer operations. Hydrogen
sulfide emissions are generated only from the lagoons used at wet layer operations and are
calculated using Equation 2-20. Under Option 5, the lagoons are covered; therefore, there are no
hydrogen sulfide emissions from wet layer operations.
Baseline and Options 1-4, 6-7:
Model Farm Hydrogen Sulfide Emissions (ton/yr) = Lagoon EF x Avg Head ^ 2,000 Ib/ton [2-20]
Option 5:
Model Farm Hydrogen Sulfide Emissions (ton/yr) = 0
2-34
-------
2.2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Manure Management Systems
Manure management systems, including animal confinement areas, produce
methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O) emissions. This subsection presents the data inputs and
the calculation methodology used to estimate greenhouse gas emissions from manure
management systems, as well as a summary of the model farm results. Greenhouse gas emissions
for methane and nitrous oxide presented in this report are based on the guidance developed for
international reporting of greenhouse gas emissions (TPCC, 2000) and methodologies developed
by EPA's Office of Air and Radiation (U.S. EPA, 2002b). Appendix B presents example
calculations. All greenhouse gas emissions are reported in units of Tg-CO2 equivalent, which
normalizes the emissions to carbon dioxide.
2.2.1 Data Inputs
The estimation of greenhouse gas emissions from manure management systems
uses a number of data inputs, including:
Animal weight;
Volatile solids excretion rate;
Nitrogen excretion rate;
Maximum methane-producing potential (B0);
Runoff solids generation; and
Manure composted.
Table 2.2-1 presents the waste characteristics data used in the greenhouse gas
emission calculations for each of the animal types modeled. ERG obtained volatile solids and
nitrogen excretion rate data from the Agricultural Waste Management Field Handbook (USDA,
1996). These factors are combined with average animal weight to estimate the amount of
volatile solids (VS) and total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN) excreted by the animals. Certain model
farms, such as swine - farrow-to-finish operations and layer operations, house a combination of
animals. For example, swine - farrow-to-finish operations have sows, boars, gilts, nursery pigs,
and growing pigs present. ERG estimates the average waste characteristics present at these
2-35
-------
Table 2.2-1
Waste Characteristics Data Used in Greenhouse Gas Emission Calculations
Animal Type
Mature dairy cow
Heifer
Calf
Beef cow/steer
(high-energy diet)
Broilers
Turkeys
Layers
Swine - Grow-Finish
Swine - Farrow-to-Finish
Average
Animal Weight
(kg)
612
306
159
398
1
7
2
61.25
61.25
As Excreted
Volatile
Solids
(kg/day/1,000
kg)a
8.45
7.77
0.85
5.44
15
9.7
10.25
5.4
5.4
Nitrogen
(kg/day/1,000
kg)a
0.45
0.31
0.27
0.34
1.1
0.74
0.79
0.42
0.42
Entering Compost Operation
Volatile
Solids
(Ib/ton
manure)1"
564.6
564.6
564.6
564.6
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Nitrogen
(Ib/ton
manure)1"
25.71
25.71
25.71
25.71
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
B0
(m3CH4/kg
VS excreted)
0.24
0.17
0.17
0.33
0.36
0.36
0.39
0.48
0.48
Reference for B0
Morris, 1976
Bryant, et.al., 1976
Hashimoto, 1981
Hashimoto, 1981
Hill, 1984
Hill, 1984
Hill, 1982
Hashimoto, 1984
Hashimoto, 1984
to
oo
aUSDA, 1996. Mature dairy characteristics are a combination of lactating and dry cow characteristics, assuming 17 percent of the herd is dry. Layer characteristics are a
combination of layer and pullet characteristics. Swine farrow-to-finish characteristics are a combination of growing and breeding swine characteristics.
bSweetenetal., 1997.
N/A - Not applicable.
-------
operations. For some calculations, ERG estimates the amount of volatile solids or nitrogen
entering specific waste management components. For example, under Option 5 A (for beef
feedlots, dairies, and heifer operations), ERG adjusted the amount of VS and TKN entering the
compost pile, using available data from literature on the characteristics of animal waste (manure
and bedding) entering the compost pile (Sweeten et al., 1997).
The methane-producing capacity of animal waste is related to the maximum
volume of methane (m3 CH4) that can be produced per kilogram of VS, commonly referred to as
B0. Values for B0 are available from literature and are based on the type of animal and the animal
diet.
Table 2.2-2 presents the runoff solids and manure composted data from the cost
model methodology. ERG estimates the amount of runoff solids present at beef feedlots, dairies,
and heifer operations and the amount of manure that is composted under Option 5 A for these
operations using the cost model methodology (U.S. EPA, 2002a).
The number of facilities and average head defined for each model farm, presented
in Section 1.0 of this report, is also consistent with the cost model methodology used to estimate
compliance costs for these operations.
2.2.2 Methane Emissions Methodology
Methane production is directly related to the quantity and quality of waste, the
type of waste management system used, and the temperature and moisture of the waste (U.S.
EPA, 1992). In general, manure that is handled under anaerobic conditions produces more
methane, while manure that is handled in aerobic management systems produces little methane.
Liquid and slurry systems typically have higher methane production because they often cause
anaerobic conditions to develop. Certain animal populations, such as beef cattle on feedlots,
have the potential to produce more methane because of higher energy diets that produce manure
with a high methane-producing capacity.
2-37
-------
Table 2.2-2
Data from the Cost Model Methodology Used in Greenhouse Gas Emission Calculations
Animal
Type
Beef
Heifer
Dairy
Size Class
Large 2
Large 1
Medium 3
Medium 2
Medium 1
Large 1
Medium 3
Medium 2
Medium 1
Large 1
Medium 3
Medium 2
Medium 1
Runoff Solids (kg/yr)
Central
2,242,228
159,225
66,322
47,794
32,036
121,757
71,025
50,732
32,468
111,432
46,755
33,118
19,481
Mid-
Atlantic
7,256,052
515,267
214,625
154,664
103,670
394,016
229,842
164,173
105,071
360,603
151,302
107,172
63,043
Midwest
3,776,384
268,169
111,701
80,494
53,955
205,064
119,621
85,443
54,684
187,674
78,745
55,777
32,810
Pacific
7,839,369
556,690
231,878
167,098
112,004
425,691
248,320
177,371
113,518
389,592
163,465
115,788
68,111
South
8,628,363
612,718
255,216
183,915
123,277
468,534
273,312
195,223
124,943
428,803
179,917
127,441
74,966
Manure to Composting (tons/yr)
Central
44,200
3,139
1,307
942
632
1,871
1,091
779
499
4,595
1,928
1,366
803
Mid-
Atlantic
41,437
2,943
1,226
883
592
1,721
1,004
717
459
4,595
1,928
1,366
803
Midwest
43,355
3,079
1,282
924
619
1,825
1,064
760
487
4,595
1,928
1,366
803
Pacific
41,115
2,920
1,216
876
587
1,703
993
710
454
4,595
1,928
1,366
803
South
40,681
2,889
1,203
867
581
1,680
980
700
448
4,595
1,928
1,366
803
to
oo
oo
aU.S. EPA., 2002. Cost Methodology Report for Animal Feeding Operations. Washington DC. December.
-------
Certain regulatory options evaluated for animal feeding operations are based on
the use of different waste management systems that may increase or decrease methane emissions
from animal operations. Methane is produced not only from animal waste, but also from the
digestive processes of ruminant livestock due to enteric fermentation. However, because the
regulatory options do not establish requirements dictating specific feeding strategies that affect
diet, their effect on enteric fermentation methane emissions is difficult to predict and is not
discussed in this report.
ERG calculates methane emissions using Equation 2-20, based on the
methodology described in the Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-
2000 (U.S. EPA, 2002b):
Methane Emissions (per head) = VSexcreted x Bo x 0.67 kg/m3 x MCF [2-20]
where:
VSexcreted = Volatile solids excreted (kg/yr/head)
B0 = Maximum methane-producing capacity (m3 CH4/kg VS)
MCF = Methane conversion factor based on the waste management
system
0.67 = Methane density at 20°C, 1 atmosphere (kg/m3).
Each type of manure management component is assigned a methane conversion
factor (MCF) to reflect the methane production potential for that system. MCFs for dry systems
are set equal to default IPCC factors (IPCC, 2000), and are presented in Table 2.2-3.
However, the published default MCF for anaerobic lagoons is listed as 0 percent
to 100 percent, which reflects the wide range in performance that may be achieved with these
systems. There exist relatively few data points on which to determine MCFs for these systems.
One practical way of estimating MCFs for liquid-manure-handling systems (i.e., liquid/slurry,
deep-pit, and anaerobic lagoon systems) is based on the forecast performance of biological
systems relative to temperature changes as predicted in the van't Hoff-Arrhenius equation, using
a base temperature of 30°C (Safley and Westerman, 1990), as shown in Equation 2-21.
2-39
-------
Table 2.2-3
Methane Conversion Factors for Dry Waste Management
System Components
Waste System Component
Composting
Drylot
Poultry litter
Poultry without bedding
Stacked solids
Methane Conversion Factor
0.01
0.015
0.015
0.02
0.01
where:
Tl
R
E
T2
,. r E (T2 - Tl) -,
f = exp [ —i '- ]
[2-21]
proportion of volatile solids that are biologically available for
conversion to methane
303.16K
ideal gas constant (1.987 cal/K mol)
activation energy constant (15,175 cal/mol)
ambient temperature for climate zone (for this analysis, average
annual temperature for a geographic region is used).
The monthly generation of methane is calculated based on average monthly
temperatures and the expected retention of volatile solids in the lagoon or liquid/slurry system
from month to month. Monthly temperatures are calculated by using county-level temperature
and population data. The weighted-average temperature for a state is calculated using animal
population estimates and average monthly temperature in each county. For colder climates, a
minimum temperature of 5°C was established for uncovered anaerobic lagoons and 7.5°C for
other liquid-manure-handling systems (U.S. EPA, 2002b).
The monthly production of volatile solids that are added to the system is estimated
based on the number of animals present and, for lagoon systems, adjusted for a management and
design practices factor. This factor accounts for other mechanisms by which volatile solids are
removed from the management system prior to conversion to methane, such as solids being
2-40
-------
removed from the system for application to cropland. This factor, equal to 0.8, has been
estimated using currently available methane measurement data from anaerobic lagoon systems in
the United States (ERG, 2001). The amount of volatile solids available for conversion to
methane is assumed to be equal to the amount of volatile solids produced during the month. For
anaerobic lagoons, the amount of volatile solids available also includes volatile solids that may
remain in the system from previous months. The amount of volatile solids consumed during the
month is equal to the amount available for conversion multiplied by the "/' factor. The amount
of solids carried over from one month to the next in aerobic lagoons is equal to the amount
available for conversion minus the amount consumed. The estimated amount of methane
generated during the month is equal to the monthly volatile solids consumed multiplied by the
maximum methane potential of the waste (B0). The annual MCF is then calculated as shown in
Equation 2-22:
CH4 generated (annual)
MCF (annual) = [2-221
VS generated (annual) x B
To account for the carry-over volatile solids from the year prior to the inventory year for which
estimates are calculated, it is assumed in the MCF calculation for lagoons that a portion of the
volatile solids from October, November, and December of the year prior to the inventory year are
available in the lagoon system starting January of the inventory year (U.S. EPA, 2002b).
Following this procedure, the resulting MCF (specific to an animal type and state)
accounts for temperature variation throughout the year, residual volatile solids in a system (carry-
over), and management and design practices that may reduce volatile solids available for
conversion to methane. ERG then averaged the MCFs for each region of the country modeled.
Table 2.2-4 presents the MCFs for liquid/slurry waste management system components for each
animal type and region.
2-41
-------
Table 2.2-4
Methane Conversion Factors for Liquid/Slurry Waste Management
System Components by Region
Animal Type
Beef
Heifer
Dairy
Swine
Wet Layers
Region
Central
Mid-Atlantic
Midwest
Pacific
South
Central
Mid-Atlantic
Midwest
Pacific
South
Central
Mid-Atlantic
Midwest
Pacific
South
Central
Mid-Atlantic
Midwest
Pacific
South
Central
Mid-Atlantic
Midwest
Pacific
South
Liquid/Slurry Waste System Component
Anaerobic
Lagoon3
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
0.70
0.68
0.68
0.66
0.76
0.70
0.69
0.69
0.67
0.76
0.70
0.68
0.69
0.66
0.75
Deep Pit
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
0.28
0.26
0.25
0.28
0.40
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Waste Storage
Pond
0.29
0.25
0.25
0.29
0.40
0.28
0.25
0.25
0.28
0.40
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
aAnaerobic digesters and covered anaerobic lagoons generate methane in the biogas.
consumed when flared or combusted for energy recovery.
N/A- Not applicable.
It is assumed that the methane generated is
2-42
-------
2.2.3 Model Farm Methane Emissions
Using the methodology outlined above, emissions are calculated for each animal
at a model farm in each region for each regulatory option (as defined in Section 1.0). This section
presents the model farm emissions by animal type. Appendix B presents an example calculation.
Beef/Heifer
Based on the model farm definitions, all beef cattle on feedlots and heifers at
heifer operations are housed in drylots; therefore, all wastes generated by these animals are
deposited in the drylot and emit methane at the point of generation. Although a small fraction of
beef feedlots and heifer operations may actually confine a small number of cattle in barns for all
or part of the year, the waste is still deposited and handled as a solid material and is expected to
emit similar amounts of methane. Additional methane is emitted when runoff from the drylot
enters a waste storage pond. When a settling basin precedes the storage pond, the separated
solids also generate methane when stacked.
For the baseline analysis, ERG assumes that all Large and 50 percent of Medium
CAFOs have a waste storage pond in place. Using data provided by USD A, ERG further
assumes the type of waste management systems currently in place at baseline at Large and
Medium CAFOs that have "high," "medium," and "low" requirements. "High" requirements are
assigned to 25 percent of the operations, "medium" requirements are assigned to 50 percent of
the operations, and "low" requirements are assigned to 25 percent of the operations. The cost
methodology report discusses these requirements in more detail (U.S. EPA, 2002a). Therefore,
emissions are calculated for three types of manure management components: drylots, runoff
ponds without solids separation, and runoff ponds with solids separation.
Table 2.2-5 presents the methane emission estimates by regulatory option and
model farm for beef feedlots and heifer operations. Methane emissions at Large beef feedlots
2-43
-------
Table 2.2-5
Methane Emissions for Beef Feedlots and Heifer Operations
by Regulatory Option and Model Farm (kg/yr)
Animal
Type
Size Class
Regulatory
Option
Region
Central
Mid-
Atlantic
Midwest
Pacific
South
Beef Large CAFOs
Large 2
Large 1
Baseline
Options 1-4, 6-7
Option 5A
Baseline
Options 1-4, 6-7
Option 5A
78,702
74,047
99,074
5,588
5,258
7,035
98,143
85,156
108,619
6,969
6,046
7,713
83,611
76,852
101,401
5,937
5,457
7,200
105,818
89,541
112,822
7,514
6,358
8,011
125,495
100,786
123,820
8,911
7,156
8,792
Beef Medium CAFOs
Medium 3
Medium 2
Medium 1
Baseline
Options 1-4, 6-7
Option 5A
Baseline
Options 1-4, 6-7
Option 5A
Baseline
Options 1-4, 6-7
Option 5A
2,145
2,191
2,931
1,545
1,578
2,112
1,035
1,057
1,414
2,391
2,519
3,213
1,723
1,815
2,315
1,154
1,215
1,551
2,207
2,274
3,000
1,590
1,638
2,161
1,065
1,097
1,448
2,488
2,649
3,338
1,793
1,908
2,405
1,201
1,278
1,611
2,738
2,982
3,663
1,973
2,148
2,639
1,321
1,439
1,768
Heifer Large CAFOs
Large 1
Baseline
Options 1-4, 6-7
Option 5A
4,889
4,645
5,704
5,965
5,260
6,234
5,176
4,809
5,842
6,311
5,458
6,422
7,451
6,109
7,060
Heifer Medium CAFOs
Medium 3
Medium 2
Medium 1
Baseline
Options 1-4, 6-7
Option 4
Baseline
Options 1-4, 6-7
Option 5A
Baseline
Options 1-4, 6-7
Option 5A
2,662
2,710
3,328
1,902
1,935
2,377
1,217
1,239
1,521
2,931
3,068
3,637
2,094
2,192
2,598
1,340
1,403
1,662
2,734
2,805
3,408
1,953
2,004
2,434
1,250
1,282
1,558
3,018
3,184
3,746
2,155
2,274
2,676
1,379
1,455
1,713
3,303
3,563
4,118
2,359
2,545
2,942
1,510
1,629
1,883
2-44
-------
and heifer operations decrease slightly from the baseline for all regulatory options except Option
5A. The emissions increase for all options for Medium CAFOs.
Options 1 through 4, 6, and 7 are based on all operations adding a solids
separation basin followed by a waste storage pond to control runoff (if they do not currently
operate them). For Large operations, baseline assumes all operations have a pond, and the
options add a solids separation basin. Removing more manure waste from the liquid waste
storage pond decreases methane emissions. For Medium CAFOs, baseline assumes that not all
operations have a pond or basin; therefore, adding a pond results in more waste (i.e., runoff)
being contained on site and contributing to methane emissions.
Option 5A is based upon all operations composting their manure waste, which
generates more methane than liquid storage. More methane would be emitted from compost
piles as the compost piles are turned than from stacked solids.
Daii
The dairy model farm assumes that mature dairy cattle are housed in confinement
barns and milked in milking parlors, while heifers and calves are housed in drylots. All dairies
generate methane from calves and heifers as the manure is deposited in the drylot. As with beef
feedlots, methane emissions occur from drylot runoff. For this analysis, ERG assumes that a
certain portion of the industry flush the confinement barns and parlors, and the rest scrape the
barns and hose the parlor. Dairies generate methane from the anaerobic lagoons used to store the
liquid waste from flushing and hose operations and drylot runoff. In addition, when runoff is
sent to a concrete settling basin before being stored in an anaerobic lagoon, the separated solids
also generate methane. Scrape dairies also generate methane at the point of generation in the
barn.
For the baseline analysis, ERG assumes that all Large dairies and 90 percent of
Medium dairy CAFOs have an anaerobic lagoon in place to store liquid waste. Using data
provided by USD A, ERG further assumes the type of waste management systems currently in
2-45
-------
place at baseline at Large and Medium CAFOs that have "high," "medium," and "low"
requirements. "High" requirements are assigned to 25 percent of the operations, "medium"
requirements are assigned to 50 percent of the operations, and "low" requirements are assigned to
25 percent of the operations. The cost methodology report discusses these requirements in more
detail (U.S. EPA, 2002a). Therefore, emissions are calculated for three types of manure
management components: drylots, anaerobic lagoons without solids separation, and anaerobic
lagoons with solids separation. The total methane emissions generated by each type of dairy
animal is represented by the following equations:
CH4 Emissionsdaiiy calf/heifer = Diylot + Anaerobic Lagoonrunoff
CH4 Emissionsmature_scrape = Stacked Solidsbam + Separated Solidsparlor + Anaerobic Lagoonparlor
CH4 Emissionsmature_flush = Separated Solidsbam+parlor + Anaerobic Lagoonbam+parlor
Table 2.2-6 presents the methane emission estimates in each region by regulatory
option and model farm for dairy flush and scrape operations. Methane emissions at Large dairies
decrease under all regulatory options, markedly so under Option 6. Option 6 is based on Large
dairies installing a digester with energy recovery. Virtually all methane generated in the digester
is destroyed.
Options 1 through 4 and 7 are based on all dairies adding a solids separation basin
followed by an anaerobic lagoon (if they do not currently operate them). For Large dairies,
baseline assumes all operations have a lagoon, and under all options they add a concrete settling
basin. For Medium CAFOs, baseline assumes that not all operations have a lagoon or basin.
Removing more manure waste from the liquid lagoon decreases methane emissions.
Option 5A is based on all operations composting their manure waste, which
would generate slightly more methane compared to Options 1 through 4 and 7; however,
implementation of Option 5 A would result in an overall decrease to methane emissions
compared to baseline.
2-46
-------
Table 2.2-6
Methane Emissions for Dairies
by Regulatory Option and Model Farm (kg/yr)
Animal
Type
Size Class
Regulatory
Option
Region
Central
Mid-Atlantic
Midwest
Pacific
South
Dairy - Flush Large CAFOs
Large 1
Baseline
Options 1-4, 7
Option 5A
Option 6
Dairy - Flush Medium CAFOs
Medium 3
Medium 2
Medium 1
Baseline
Options 1-4, 7
Option 5A
Option 6
Baseline
Options 1-4, 7
Option 5A
Option 6
Baseline
Options 1-4, 7
Option 5A
Option 6
Dairy - Scrape Large CAFOs
Large 1
Baseline
Options 1-4, 7
Option 5A
Option 6
256,084
156,458
159,060
3,818
250,327
153,610
156,212
3,835
249,277
152,560
155,161
3,823
243,183
149,375
151,977
3,837
280,048
171,697
174,298
3,839
102,779
65,648
66,739
65,648
72,852
46,532
47,306
46,532
42,892
27,396
27,851
27,396
100,429
64,453
65,544
64,453
71,186
45,685
46,458
45,685
41,911
26,897
27,352
26,897
100,032
64,012
65,104
64,012
70,905
45,373
46,146
45,373
41,745
26,713
27,168
26,713
97,554
62,676
63,767
62,676
69,148
44,426
45,199
44,426
40,711
26,155
26,610
26,155
112,359
72,042
73,133
72,042
79,642
51,064
51,837
51,064
46,889
30,064
30,519
30,064
45,011
30,068
32,669
6,586
45,417
30,910
33,512
6,602
44,367
29,860
32,461
6,591
44,436
30,365
32,967
6,604
50,488
34,236
36,837
6,607
Dairy - Scrape Medium CAFOs
Medium 3
Medium 2
Medium 1
Baseline
Options 1-4, 7
Option 5A
Option 6
Baseline
Options 1-4, 7
Option 5A
Option 6
Baseline
Options 1-4, 7
Option 5A
Option 6
18,190
12,616
13,708
12,616
12,893
8,942
9,716
8,942
7,591
5,265
5,720
5,265
18,380
12,969
14,061
12,969
13,027
9,193
9,966
9,193
7,670
5,412
5,867
5,412
17,939
12,529
13,620
12,529
12,715
8,880
9,654
8,880
7,486
5,228
5,683
5,228
17,987
12,741
13,832
12,741
12,749
9,031
9,804
9,031
7,506
5,316
5,771
5,316
20,431
14,365
15,456
14,365
14,481
10,181
10,955
10,181
8,525
5,994
6,449
5,994
2-47
-------
Veal
The veal model farm assumes all calves are housed in confinement barns. A
certain portion of the industry flushes the confinement barns and stores the manure waste in an
anaerobic lagoon; the rest of the industry has barns with underpit storage for the manure. For this
analysis, ERG assumes that 67 percent of all veal operations have a lagoon, 33 percent have
underpit storage, and all operations equipped with a lagoon also have a settling basin in place.
Methane is emitted from the lagoon, separated solids, and solids from underpit storage; therefore,
the total methane emissions generated by each type of veal operation is represented by the
following equations:
CH4 EmissionSunderplt storage = Stacked Solidsplt
CH4 Emissionsflush = Separated Solidsbarn + Anaerobic Lagoonbarn
Table 2.2-7 presents the methane emission estimates by regulatory option and
model farm for veal flush and underpit storage operations. No changes are expected in emissions
for veal operations equipped with underpit storage under any regulatory option. Flush operations
have a decrease in emissions under Option 5, because under this options, anaerobic lagoons are
covered and the biogas generated is flared.
2-48
-------
Table 2.2-7
Methane Emissions for Veal Operations
by Regulatory Option and Model Farm (kg/yr)
Animal
Type
Size Class
Regulatory
Option
Region
Central
Mid-
Atlantic
Midwest
Pacific
South
Veal - Flush Medium CAFOs
Medium 3
Medium 2
Medium 1
Baseline and
Options 1-4, 6-7
Option 5
Baseline and
Options 1-4, 6-7
Option 5
Baseline and
Options 1-4, 6-7
Option 5
3,752
79
1,876
39
1,390
29
3,647
79
1,824
39
1,351
29
3,647
79
1,824
39
1,351
29
3,542
79
1,771
39
1,312
29
4,067
79
2,033
39
1,506
29
Veal - Underpit Storage Medium CAFOs
Medium 3
Medium 2
Medium 1
Baseline and all
options
Baseline and all
options
Baseline and all
options
3,149
1,574
1,166
2,624
1,312
972
2,624
1,312
972
2,939
1,469
1,088
4,198
2,099
1,555
2-49
-------
The model farm for broilers and turkeys assumes all animals are housed in poultry
houses using a litter-based system. Methane is generated from the manure as it is "stored" on the
floor of the house.
The model farm for dry layer operations assumes all animals are housed in poultry
houses with suspended cages over the floor. Methane is generated from the manure as it is
"stored" on the floor of the house. The model farm for wet layer operations assumes the waste is
flushed from the house and stored in an anaerobic lagoon. As with other animal groups
discussed above, methane is emitted from the lagoon.
Table 2.2-8 presents the methane emission estimates in each region by regulatory
option and model farm for poultry operations. No changes are expected in emissions from
broiler, turkey, and dry layer operations under any regulatory option. Option 5 is based on wet
layer operations having covered lagoons. Emissions are negligible under this option because
operations are expected to flare the biogas.
2-50
-------
Table 2.2-8
Methane Emissions for Poultry Operations
by Regulatory Option and Model Farm (kg/yr)
Animal
Type
Size
Class
Regulatory Option
Region
Mid-Atlantic
Midwest
South
Broilers Large CAFOs
Large 2
Large 1
Baseline and all Regulatory Options
6,661
2,135
N/A
N/A
6,705
2,115
Broilers Medium CAFOs
Medium 3
Medium 2
Medium 1
Baseline and all Regulatory Options
1,440
920
699
N/A
N/A
N/A
1,444
916
696
Turkey Large CAFOs
Large 1
Baseline and all Regulatory Options
11,553
11,553
N/A
Turkey Medium CAFOs
Medium 3
Medium 2
Medium 1
Baseline and all Regulatory Options
3,948
2,693
1,597
3,948
2,693
1,597
N/A
N/A
N/A
Layers - Dry Large CAFOs
Large 2
Large 1
Baseline and all Regulatory Options
N/A
N/A
29,722
6,228
29,722
6,228
Layers - Dry Medium CAFOs
Medium 3
Medium 2
Medium 1
Baseline and all Regulatory Options
N/A
N/A
N/A
2,236
1,296
873
2,236
1,296
873
Layers Wet - Large CAFOs
Large 1
Baseline and Options 1-4, 6-7
Option 5a
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
114,683
114,683
Layers Wet - Medium CAFOs
Medium 3
Baseline and Options 1-4, 6-7
Option 5a
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
4,822
4,822
N/A-Not Applicable.
^Assumes all biogas is collected and flared; methane emissions are negligible.
2-51
-------
Swine
The model farm for swine operations assumes all swine are housed in total
confinement barns. Swine operations generate methane from the anaerobic lagoons, deep pits,
and evaporative lagoons used to store liquid slurry waste. For this analysis, ERG assumes that
Mid-Atlantic and Midwest swine operations flush manure to an aerobic lagoon or store the
manure in deep pits. ERG also assumes that all Central swine operations flush the manure to
evaporative lagoons.
Table 2.2-9 presents the methane emission estimates by regulatory option and
model farm for swine operations. Flush operations with anaerobic lagoons in the Mid-Atlantic
and Midwest are expected to decrease emissions under Option 5 because this option is based on
covered anaerobic lagoons and flaring the generated biogas. The Large swine operations are
expected to decrease emissions under Option 6 because this option is based on collecting the
biogas for energy recovery. For both of these cases, methane emissions are expected to be
negligible.
2-52
-------
Table 2.2-9
Methane Emissions for Swine Operations
by Regulatory Option and Model Farm (kg/yr)
Animal Type
Size Class
Regulatory Option
Region
Central
Mid-
Atlantic
Midwest
Swine - Grow-Finish - Lagoon and Evaporative Lagoon Large CAFOs
Large 2
Large 1
Baseline and Options 1-4, and 7
Option 5a
Option 6a
Baseline and Options 1-4, and 7
Option 5a
Option 6a
798,715
0
0
93,898
0
0
238,235
0
0
95,208
0
0
268,668
0
0
91,538
0
0
Swine - Grow-Finish - Lagoon and Evaporative Lagoon Medium CAFOs
Medium 3
Medium 2
Medium 1
Baseline and Options 1-4, and 7
Option 5a
Option 6a
Baseline and Options 1-4, and 7
Option 5a
Option 6a
Baseline and Options 1-4, and 7
Option 5a
Option 6a
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
58,507
0
58,507
40,746
0
40,746
25,798
0
25,798
56,900
0
56,900
38,094
0
38,094
24,110
0
24,110
Swine - Grow-Finish - Deep Pit Large CAFOs
Large 2
Large 1
Baseline and Options 1-4, and 7
Option 5a
Option 6a
Baseline and Options 1-4, and 7
Option 5a
Option 6a
319,486
319,486
0
37,559
37,559
0
89,770
89,770
0
35,876
35,876
0
97,343
97,343
0
33,166
33,166
0
2-53
-------
Table 2.2-9 (Continued)
Animal Type
Size Class
Regulatory Option
Region
Central
Mid-
Atlantic
Midwest
Swine - Grow Finish - Deep Pit Medium CAFOs
Medium 3
Medium 2
Medium 1
Baseline and Options 1-4, and 7
Option 5a
Option 6a
Baseline and Options 1-4, and 7
Option 5a
Option 6a
Baseline and Options 1-4, and 7
Option 5a
Option 6a
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
22,046
22,046
22,046
15,354
15,354
15,354
9,721
9,721
9,721
20,616
20,616
20,616
13,802
13,802
13,802
8,736
8,736
8,736
Swine - Farrow-to-Finish - Lagoon and Evaporative Lagoon Large CAFOs
Large 2
Large 1
Baseline and Options 1-4, and 7
Option 5a
Option 6a
Baseline and Options 1-4, and 7
Option 5a
Option 6a
225,517
0
0
98,545
0
0
451,930
0
0
92,641
0
0
370,198
0
0
92,262
0
0
Swine - Farrow-to-Finish - Lagoon and Evaporative Lagoon Medium CAFOs
Medium 3
Medium 2
Medium 1
Baseline and Options 1-4, and 7
Option 5a
Option 6a
Baseline and Options 1-4, and 7
Option 5a
Option 6a
Baseline and Options 1-4, and 7
Option 5a
Option 6a
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
57,158
0
57,158
40,076
0
40,076
22,335
0
22,335
57,650
0
57,650
39,112
0
39,112
21,806
0
21,806
2-54
-------
Table 2.2-9 (Continued)
Animal Type
Size Class
Regulatory Option
Region
Central
Mid-
Atlantic
Midwest
Swine - Farrow-to-Finish - Deep Pit Large CAFOs
Large 2
Large 1
Baseline and Options 1-4, and 7
Option 5a
Option 6a
Baseline and Options 1-4, and 7
Option 5a
Option 6a
90,207
90,207
0
39,418
39,418
0
172,797
172,797
0
35,421
35,421
0
134,130
134,130
0
33,428
33,428
0
Swine - Farrow-to-Finish - Deep Pit Medium CAFOs
Medium 3
Medium 2
Medium 1
Baseline and Options 1-4, and 7
Option 5a
Option 6a
Baseline and Options 1-4, and 7
Option 5a
Option 6a
Baseline and Options 1-4, and 7
Option 5a
Option 6a
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
21,854
21,854
21,854
15,323
15,323
15,323
8,540
8,540
8,540
20,888
20,888
20,888
14,171
14,171
14,171
7,901
7,901
7,901
N/A - Not Applicable.
aAssumes all biogas is collected and flared. It is assumed that methane emissions are negligible.
2-55
-------
2.2.4 Nitrous Oxide Methodology
Nitrous oxide is produced as part of the nitrogen cycle through the nitrification
and denitrification of the organic nitrogen in livestock manure and urine. The emission of
nitrous oxide from manure management systems is based on the nitrogen content of the manure,
as well as the length of time the manure is stored and the specific type of system used. In
general, the amount of nitrous oxide emitted from manure management systems tends to be small
because conditions are often not suitable for nitrification to occur; however, when nitrous oxide
is generated, manure that is handled as a liquid tends to produce less nitrous oxide than manure
that is handled as a solid. Certain regulatory options evaluated for animal feeding operations are
based on the use of different waste management systems that may increase nitrous oxide
emissions from animal operations.
The amount of nitrous oxide produced is related to the amount of nitrogen
excreted by the animal. Values for TKN, a measure of organic nitrogen plus ammonia nitrogen,
are typically available for animal waste. ERG calculates nitrous oxide emissions using Equation
2-23, based on the methodology described in the Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
and Sinks: 1990-2000 (U.S. EPA, 2002b).
44 N,O
N2O Emissions (per head) = Nexcreted x EF x L_ [2-23]
where:
Nexcreted= TKN(kg/yr/head)
EF = N2O emission factor based on the management system (kg
N2O-N/kg N)
44/28 = conversion factor to N9O.
Table 2.2-11 presents the default nitrogen emission factors for waste management
system components (IPCC, 2000). These emission factors do not vary based on region. As
shown in Table 2.2-10, the emission factors for liquid-handling systems (e.g., anaerobic lagoons,
2-56
-------
waste storage pond) are an order of magnitude less than those for dry systems (e.g., composting,
drylot, stacked solids).
2.2.5
Model Farm Nitrous Oxide Emissions
Using the methodology outlined above, emissions are calculated for each animal
at a model farm in each region for each regulatory option (as defined in Section 1.0). This section
presents the model farm emissions by animal type. Appendix B presents an example calculation.
The same model farm assumptions outlined in Section 2.2.3 (methane emissions) are used to
calculate the nitrous oxide emissions.
Table 2.2-10
Nitrous Oxide Emission Factors
Waste System Component
Aerobic treatment (e.g., hog high-rise house)
Anaerobic lagoon
Anaerobic digester
Composting
Deep pit
Drylot
Poultry litter
Poultry without bedding
Stacked solids
Waste storage pond
Emission Factor
0.02
0.001
a
0.02
0.001
0.02
0.02
0.005
0.02
0.001
^Assumes all biogas is collected and flared; nitrous oxide emissions are negligible.
Beef/Heifer
Table 2.2-11 presents the nitrous oxide emission estimates by regulatory option
and model farm for beef feedlots and heifer operations. Nitrous oxide emissions at Large beef
feedlots and heifer operations decrease slightly from the baseline for all regulatory options except
Option 5A. The emissions increase slightly for all options for Medium CAFOs.
2-57
-------
Options 1 through 4, 6, and 7 assume that all operations add a solids separation
basin followed by a waste storage pond to control runoff (if they do not currently operate them).
For Large operations, baseline assumes all operations have a pond and would add a solids
separation basin under all options. Removing more manure waste from the liquid waste storage
pond decreases nitrous oxide emissions. For Medium CAFOs, baseline assumes that not all
operations have a pond or basin; therefore, adding a pond results in more waste (i.e., runoff)
contained on site and contributes to nitrous oxide emissions.
Option 5A is based on all operations composting their manure waste, which
would generate more nitrous oxide than liquid storage. More nitrous oxide is emitted from
compost piles as the compost piles are turned than from stacked solids.
2-58
-------
Table 2.2-11
Nitrous Oxide Emissions for Beef Feedlots and Heifer Operations
by Regulatory Option and Model Farm (kg/yr)
Animal
Type
Size Class
Regulatory
Option
Region
Central
Mid-
Atlantic
Midwest
Pacific
South
Beef Large CAFOs
Large 2
Large 1
Baseline
Options 1-4, 6-7
Option 5A
Baseline
Options 1-4, 6-7
Option 5A
Beef Medium CAFOs
Medium 3
Medium 2
Medium 1
Baseline
Options 1-4, 6-7
Option 5A
Baseline
Options 1-4, 6-7
Option 5A
Baseline
Options 1-4, 6-7
Option 5A
Heifer Large CAFOs
Large 1
Baseline
Options 1-4, 6-7
Option 5A
Heifer Medium CAFOs
Medium 3
Medium 2
Medium 1
Baseline
Options 1-4, 6-7
Option 4
Baseline
Options 1-4, 6-7
Option 5A
Baseline
Options 1-4, 6-7
Option 5A
40,196
40,189
56,389
2,854
2,854
2,911
40,234
40,210
40,970
2,857
2,855
2,909
40,208
40,196
40,990
2,855
2,854
2,910
40,238
40,213
40,966
2,857
2,855
2,909
40,244
40,216
40,962
2,857
2,855
2,908
1,189
1,189
1,213
857
857
874
573
573
585
1,189
1,190
1,212
857
857
873
574
574
585
1,189
1,189
1,213
857
857
874
574
574
585
1,189
1,190
1,212
857
857
873
574
574
585
1,190
1,190
1,212
857
857
873
574
574
585
1,634
1,634
2,319
1,636
1,635
2,265
1,635
1,634
2,303
1,636
1,635
2,259
1,636
1,635
2,251
953
953
1,353
681
681
966
436
436
618
953
954
1,321
681
681
944
436
436
604
953
953
1,343
681
681
959
436
436
614
953
954
1,318
681
681
941
436
436
602
953
954
1,313
681
681
938
436
436
600
2-59
-------
Daii
Table 2.2-12 presents the nitrous oxide emission estimates by regulatory option
and model farm for flush and scrape dairies. Nitrous oxide emissions at Large dairies increase
under all regulatory options. Options 1 through 4 and 7 assume that all operations add a solids
separation basin followed by an anaerobic lagoon (if they do not currently operate them). For
Large dairies, baseline assumes all operations have a lagoon and would add a concrete settling
basin under all options. For Medium dairy CAFOs, baseline assumes that not all operations have
a lagoon or basin. Removing more manure waste from the liquid lagoon increases nitrous oxide
emissions.
Under Option 5 A, ERG assumes that all lagoons are covered and biogas from the
covered lagoon is flared. Consequently, implementation of Option 5 A would generate more
nitrous oxide compared to Options 1 through 4, 6, and 7. Option 6 is based on Large dairies
installing a digester with energy recovery. Virtually all nitrous oxide generated in a digester is
destroyed.
Veal
Table 2.2-13 presents the nitrous oxide emission estimates by regulatory option
and model farm for veal flush and underpit storage operations. No changes are expected in
emissions from veal operations equipped with underpit storage under any regulatory option.
Flush operations have a decrease in emissions under Option 5 because this option is based on
covered anaerobic lagoons and flaring the biogas generated.
2-60
-------
Table 2.2-12
Nitrous Oxide Emissions for Dairy Operations
by Regulatory Option and Model Farm (kg/yr)
Animal
Type
Size Class
Regulatory
Option
Region
Central
Mid-Atlantic
Midwest
Pacific
South
Dairy - Flush Large CAFOs
Large 1
Baseline
Options 1-4, 7
Option 5A
Option 6
Dairy - Flush Medium CAFOs
Medium 3
Medium 2
Medium 1
Baseline
Options 1-4, 7
Option 5A
Option 6
Baseline
Options 1-4, 7
Option 5A
Option 6
Baseline
Options 1-4, 7
Option 5A
Option 6
Dairy - Scrape Large CAFOs
Large 1
Baseline
Options 1-4, 7
Option 5A
Option 6
Dairy - Scrape Medium CAFOs
Medium 3
Medium 2
Medium 1
Baseline
Options 1-4, 7
Option 5A
Option 6
Baseline
Options 1-4, 7
Option 5A
Option 6
Baseline
Options 1-4, 7
Option 5A
Option 6
1,526
2,965
5,082
2,852
1,528
2,966
5,024
2,853
1,527
2,965
5,072
2,852
1,528
2,967
5,018
2,854
1,529
2,967
4,988
2,854
514
1,244
1,930
1,244
364
882
1,568
882
214
481
832
481
515
1,245
1,912
1,245
365
882
1,549
882
215
482
822
482
514
1,244
1,927
1,244
364
882
1,565
882
215
482
830
482
515
1,245
1,910
1,245
365
882
1,547
882
215
482
822
482
515
1,245
1,900
1,245
365
882
1,537
882
215
482
817
482
4,573
4,789
6,906
4,772
4,575
4,791
6,848
4,774
4,574
4,790
6,897
4,773
4,575
4,791
6,843
4,774
4,576
4,791
6,812
4,774
1,900
2,009
2,696
2,009
1,347
1,424
2,111
1,424
796
556
907
556
1,901
2,010
2,677
2,010
1,347
1,425
2,092
1,425
796
557
897
557
1,900
2,010
2,693
2,010
1,347
1,424
2,108
1424
796
556
905
556
1,901
2,010
2,675
2,010
1,347
1,425
2,090
1,425
796
557
896
557
1,901
2,010
2,665
2,010
1,347
1,425
2,080
1,425
797
557
891
557
2-61
-------
Table 2.2-13
Nitrous Oxide Emissions for Veal Operations
by Regulatory Option and Model Farm (kg/yr)
Animal
Type
Size Class
Regulatory
Option
Region
Central
Mid-Atlantic
Midwest
Pacific
South
Veal - Flush Medium CAFOs
Medium 3
Medium 2
Medium 1
Baseline and
Options 1-4, 6-7
Option 5
Baseline and
Options 1-4, 6-7
Option 5
Baseline and
Options 1-4, 6-7
Option 5
3,752
79
1,876
39
1,390
29
3,647
79
1,824
39
1,351
29
3,647
79
1,824
39
1,351
29
3,542
79
1,771
39
1,312
29
4,067
79
2,033
39
1,506
29
Veal - Underpit Storage Medium CAFOs
Medium 3
Medium 2
Medium 1
Baseline and all
options
Baseline and all
options
Baseline and all
options
3,149
1,574
1,166
2,624
1,312
972
2,624
1,312
972
2,939
1,469
1,088
4,198
2,099
1,555
2-62
-------
Table 2.2-14 presents the nitrous oxide emission estimates by regulatory option
and model farm for poultry operations. There are no changes expected to emissions from broiler,
turkey, and dry layer operations under any regulatory option. Option 5 is based on wet layer
operations with covered lagoons. Emissions are negligible under this option because operations
are expected to flare the biogas.
Swine
Table 2.2-15 presents the nitrous oxide emission estimates by regulatory option
and model farm for swine operations. Flush operations with anaerobic lagoons in the Mid-
Atlantic and Midwest regions are expected to have a decrease in emissions under Option 5
because this option is based on covered anaerobic lagoons and flaring the generated biogas.
Large swine operations are expected to have a decrease in emissions under Option 6 because this
option is based on digesters collecting the biogas for energy recovery. For both of these cases,
nitrous oxide emissions are expected to be negligible.
2-63
-------
Table 2.2-14
Nitrous Oxide Emissions for Poultry Operations
by Regulatory Option and Model Farm (kg/yr)
Animal
Type
Size Class
Regulatory Option
Region
Mid-Atlantic
Midwest
South
Broilers Large CAFOs
Large 2
Large 1
Baseline and all options
4,243
1,360
N/A
N/A
4,271
1,347
Broilers Medium CAFOs
Medium 3
Medium 2
Medium 1
Baseline and all options
917
586
445
N/A
N/A
N/A
920
584
443
Turkey Large CAFOs
Large 1
Baseline and all options
7,656
7,656
N/A
Turkey Medium CAFOs
Medium 3
Medium 2
Medium 1
Baseline and all options
2,616
1,785
1,058
2,616
1,785
1,058
N/A
N/A
N/A
Layers - Dry Large CAFOs
Large 2
Large 1
Baseline and all options
N/A
N/A
4,592
962
4,592
962
Layers - Dry Medium CAFOs
Medium 3
Medium 2
Medium 1
Baseline and all options
N/A
N/A
N/A
345
200
135
345
200
135
Layers - Wet Large CAFOs
Large 1
Baseline and options 1-
4,6-7
Option 5a
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
71
71
Layers - Wet Medium CAFOs
Medium 3
Baseline and options 1-
4,6-7
Option 5a
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
3
3
N/A - Not applicable.
^Assumes all biogas is collected and flared; nitrous oxide emissions are negligible.
2-64
-------
Table 2.2-15
Nitrous Oxide Emissions for Swine Operations
by Regulatory Option and Model Farm (kg/yr)
Animal
Type
Size Class
Regulatory Option
Region
Central
Mid-Atlantic
Midwest
Swine - Grow Finish - Lagoon and Evaporative Lagoon Large CAFOs
Large 2
Large 1
Baseline and Options 1-4, and 7
Option 5a
Option 6a
Baseline and Options 1-4, and 7
Option 5a
Option 6a
434
0
0
51
0
0
131
0
0
52
0
0
71
0
0
24
0
0
Swine - Grow Finish - Lagoon and Evaporative Lagoon Medium CAFOs
Medium 3
Medium 2
Medium 1
Baseline and Options 1-4, and 7
Option 5a
Option 6a
Baseline and Options 1-4, and 7
Option 5a
Option 6a
Baseline and Options 1-4, and 7
Option 5a
Option 6a
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
32
0
32
22
0
22
14
0
14
15
0
15
10
0
10
6
0
6
Swine - Grow Finish - Deep-Pit Large CAFOs
Large 2
Large 1
Baseline and Options 1-4, and 7
Option 5a
Option 6a
Baseline and Options 1-4, and 7
Option 5a
Option 6a
434
434
0
51
51
0
131
131
0
52
52
0
71
71
0
24
24
0
2-65
-------
Table 2.2-15 (Continued)
Animal
Type
Size Class
Regulatory Option
Region
Central
Mid-Atlantic
Midwest
Swine - Grow Finish - Deep-Pit Medium CAFOs
Medium 3
Medium 2
Medium 1
Baseline and Options 1-4, and 7
Option 5a
Option 6a
Baseline and Options 1-4, and 7
Option 5a
Option 6a
Baseline and Options 1-4, and 7
Option 5aO
Option 6a
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
32
32
32
22
22
22
14
14
14
15
15
15
10
10
10
6
6
6
Swine - Farrow-to-Finish - Lagoon and Evaporative Lagoon Large CAFOs
Large 2
Large 1
Baseline and Options 1-4, and 7
Option 5a
Option 6a
Baseline and Options 1-4, and 7
Option 5a
Option 6a
122
0
0
54
0
0
253
0
0
52
0
0
98
0
0
24
0
0
Swine - Farrow-to-Finish - Lagoon and Evaporative Lagoon Medium CAFOs
Medium 3
Medium 2
Medium 1
Baseline and Options 1-4, and 7
Option 5a
Option 6a
Baseline and Options 1-4, and 7
Option 5a
Option 6a
Baseline and Options 1-4, and 7
Option 5a
Option 6a
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
32
0
32
22
0
22
12
0
12
15
0
15
10
0
10
6
0
6
2-66
-------
Table 2.2-15 (Continued)
Animal
Type
Size Class
Regulatory Option
Region
Central
Mid-Atlantic
Midwest
Swine - Farrow-to-Finish - Deep-Pit Large CAFOs
Large 2
Large 1
Baseline and Options 1-4, and 7
Option 5a
Option 6a
Baseline and Options 1-4, and 7
Option 5a
Option 6a
122
122
0
54
54
0
253
253
0
52
52
0
98
98
0
24
24
0
Swine - Farrow-to-Finish - Deep-Pit Medium CAFOs
Medium 3
Medium 2
Medium 1
Baseline and Options 1-4, and 7
Option 5a
Option 6a
Baseline and Options 1-4, and 7
Option 5a
Option 6a
Baseline and Options 1-4, and 7
Option 5a
Option 6a
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
32
32
32
22
22
22
12
12
12
15
15
15
10
10
10
6
6
6
N/A-Not Applicable.
a Assumes all biogas is collected and flared; nitrous oxide emissions are negligible.
2-67
-------
2.3 Criteria Air Emissions from Energy Recovery Systems
Criteria air pollutants are those pollutants for which a national ambient air quality
standard has been set. The criteria pollutants evaluated as non-water quality impacts from energy
recovery systems include oxides of nitrogen (NOX), which are precursors to ozone, as well as
sulfur dioxide (SO2), and carbon monoxide (CO). These criteria pollutants are formed during the
flaring and combustion of biogas. Particulate matter (PM) and volatile organic compounds
(VOCs) were not included in this analysis. A properly operated flare or gas turbine should have
minimal or no VOC emissions. Sulfur dioxide was calculated here despite not being included in
the transportation and composting analyses; sulfur dioxide is formed when biogas is combusted
or flared but is not a significant by-product of transportation or composting activities.
2.3.1 Data Inputs
The estimation of criteria air emissions from energy recovery systems is based on
one primary data input: the amount of methane generated from the anaerobic lagoon or digester
systems. This value is used to estimate the amount of biogas generated at the model farm. Table
2.3-1 presents the estimate of total methane generated at each model farm for Options 5 and 6
based on the methodology discussed in Section 2.2.
2.3.2 Emissions Methodology
Criteria pollutant air emissions from flaring and energy recovery systems are
expected under Options 5 and 6. Under Option 5, anaerobic lagoons at all swine, chicken, and
veal CAFOs are expected to be covered and the biogas vented to a flare. Option 6 is based on the
implementation of anaerobic digestion systems with energy recovery for all Large dairy and
swine CAFOs. Options 5 and 6 are expected to greatly reduce the emissions of methane through
the capture of the biogas; however, flaring the biogas or using it in an energy recovery system
will increase emissions of the criteria pollutants NOX, SO2 and CO. These pollutants are
generated from oxidation of nitrogen (from NH3), sulfur (from H2S), and carbon compounds
(from organics and methane).
2-68
-------
Table 2.3-1
Total Methane Generated - Options 5 and 6 (kg/year)
Animal Type
Size Class
System Type
Units
Central
Mid-
Atlantic
Midwest
Pacific
South
Option 5
Veal
Swine
Swine
Wet Layer
Medium 3
Medium 2
Medium 1
Large 2
Large 1
Medium 3
Medium 2
Medium 1
Large 2
Large 1
Medium 3
Medium 2
Medium 1
Large 1
Medium 3
Flush
Flush
Flush
Farrow-to-Finish
Farrow-to-Finish
Farrow-to-Finish
Farrow-to-Finish
Farrow-to-Finish
Grow-Finish
Grow-Finish
Grow-Finish
Grow-Finish
Grow-Finish
Flush
Flush
kgCH4/year
kgCH4/year
kgCH4/year
kgCH4/year
kgCH4/year
kgCH4/year
kgCH4/year
kgCH4/year
kgCH4/year
kgCH4/year
kgCH4/year
kgCH4/year
kgCH4/year
kgCH4/year
kgCH4/year
3,673
1,837
1,360
225,517
98,545
N/A
N/A
N/A
798,715
93,898
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
3,568
1,784
1,322
451,930
92,641
57,158
40,076
22,335
238,235
95,208
58,507
40,746
25,798
N/A
N/A
3,568
1,784
1,322
370,198
92,262
57,650
39,112
21,806
268,668
91,538
56,900
38,094
24,110
N/A
N/A
3,463
1,732
1,283
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
3,988
1,994
1,477
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
114,683
4,822
Option 6
Dairy
Swine
Large 1
Large 2
Large 1
Flush
Hose
Farrow-to-Finish
Grow-Finish
Farrow-to-Finish
Grow-Finish
kgCH4/year
kgCH4/year
kgCH4/year
kgCH4/year
kgCH4/year
kgCH4/year
152,648
23,489
225,517
798,715
98,545
93,898
149,800
24,332
451,930
238,235
92,641
95,208
148,749
23,281
370,198
268,668
92,262
91,538
145,565
23,787
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
167,886
27,657
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A- Not applicable.
2-69
-------
Calculation of Biogas Volume
The methodologies used to estimate the emissions of these pollutants require
information on the volume of the biogas being burned. It is assumed that the biogas consists of
approximately 70 percent methane and 30 percent carbon dioxide by volume. ERG calculated a
total volume of biogas from the methane mass values presented in Table 2.3-1 by converting to a
volumetric flow basis using the ideal gas law at standard temperature and pressure, as shown in
Equation 2.24. These methodologies were developed in consultation with EPA's Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS).
PV = nRT [2-24]
where:
P = pressure = 1.01325 x 10s Pa
R = gas law constant =8.314 (m3 x Pa)/ (mol x K)
T = temperature = 293 K
n = moles of gas = (mCH4/MWCH4) x 1000
mcH4 = methane mass generation value from OW calculation (kg/yr)
MWCH4 = methane molecular weight =16 g/mol.
Total volume of biogas (Vbio) generated and collected is calculated using Equation 2-25.
v = 0 70 x V
VCH4 U'/U Vbio
Appendix C presents an example calculation.
NOX Emissions
NOX is emitted when nitrogen compounds in biogas are oxidized and during the
combustion process. No emission factors are available for biogas combustion that would
incorporate both situations. Available NOX emission factors for other fuels would underestimate
emissions because lagoon biogas has higher nitrogen content than other fuels. Therefore, ERG
2-70
-------
estimates NOX emissions using both emission factors and a calculation to estimate the amount of
volatilized ammonia that will be oxidized to NOX.
ERG used emission factors to estimate thermal NOX formation. Thermal NOX
from flares was estimated using the AP-42 emission factors for landfill gas combustion flares.
The landfill gas factors are based on combusting 100 percent methane. Because biogas
comprises mainly methane (approximately 70 percent), the AP-42 landfill gas factors are
expected to approximate emissions from biogas. The emissions from gas turbines were also
estimated using emission factors in AP-42 for landfill gas.
ERG estimated NOX calculated from oxidation of nitrogen compounds in the
biogas, assuming a portion of the nitrogen compounds (i.e., ammonia) are converted to NOX.
Several technical articles provided a range of possible concentrations of ammonia in the biogas
(Harper, et al., 2000; Ni, et al., 2000a). For this analysis, ERG used the maximum of the range,
1.67 percent ammonia by volume, to provide a conservative estimate. Equation 2-26 is used to
calculate the volumetric flow rate of NH3 (Vj^) in the biogas.
"NH3 vbio
0.0167 [2-26]
When combusted, most of the ammonia will form N2 rather than NOX because the
energy of formation for N2 is lower. Consequently, assuming that all ammonia is converted to
NOX would be an overestimate. One technical article suggested that a maximum of 30 percent of
ammonia would convert to NOX (Harper, et al., 2000), which was used in the calculations.
Equation 2-27 is used to calculate thermal NOX.
2-71
-------
where:
M = V x r x EF l_
lvltNOx VCH4 %ol , ,nf. r<
[2-27]
M,
Cvol
EF
tNOx
mass of thermal NOX emitted (kg/yr)
volume conversion factor = 35.314 ft3/m3
emission factor = 40 Ibs NOX/ million ft3 CH4 combusted
mass conversion factor = 2.2 Ib/kg.
Equation 2-28 is used to estimate annual fuel NOX emissions.
where:
m
fNQx
MW
NH3
MW™.
NOx
p x V x MW
r VNH3 1V1VVNH3
R x T x 1000
MW
1V1VV
NOx
x 0.3
[2-28]
annual fuel NOX emissions (kg/yr)
molecular weight of NH3 = 17 g/mol
molecular weight of NOX (as N2O) = 44 g/mol.
emissions.
The total annual NOX emission (mNOx) is simply the sum of thermal and fuel NOX
SO2 Emissions
ERG estimates SO2 emissions by assuming that the sulfur compounds in biogas
are completely oxidized in both the flare and gas turbine. Several technical articles provided a
range of possible concentrations of H2S in the biogas (Ni, et al., 2000b). For this analysis, ERG
used the maximum of the range, 0.36 percent H2S by volume, to provide a conservative estimate.
The H2S volume (Vms) is calculated using Equation 2-29.
vH2S = vblo
0.0036
[2-29]
2-72
-------
Equation 2-30 is used to estimate SO2, assuming all the H2S in the biogas is
completely oxidized to SO2.
where:
™S02
ms02
MWms
MWS02
P x VH2S x MWH2S ^ MWS02
R x T xlOOO
MW,
[2-30]
H2S
mass of SO2 emitted (kg/yr)
molecular weight of H2S = 34 g/mol
molecular weight of SO2 = 64 g/mol.
Appendix C contains a sample calculation of SO2 emissions.
CO Emissions
CO emissions are generated from incomplete combustion of methane and other
organic compounds in biogas. ERG estimated emissions using the AP-42 emission factors for
landfill gas combustion (of methane). Landfill gas factors were used for the same reasons
discussed for SO2 (i.e., methane makes up the majority of biogas). Equation 2-31 is used to
calculate CO emissions.
where:
m
CO
EF
= v
CH4
EF
IxlO6
[2-31]
mass of CO emitted (kg/yr)
volume conversion factor = 35.314 ft3/m3
emission factor = 750 Ibs CO / million ft3 CH4 combusted
(flaring)
mass conversion factor = 2.2 Ib/kg.
Appendix C presents a sample calculation of CO emissions.
2-73
-------
2.3.3
Model Farm Emissions
Table 2.3-2 presents the total amount of biogas generated at dairies and swine, wet
layer, and veal operations under Options 5 and 6. Tables 2.3-3 through 2.3-5 present the
estimated criteria air pollutant emissions for swine, wet layer, and veal operations under Option
5, and for Large swine operations and dairies under Option 6.
Table 2.3-2
Total Biogas Generated - Options 5 and 6 (m3/yr)
Animal Type
Size
Class
System Type
Region
Central
Mid-
Atlantic
Midwest
Pacific
South
Option 5
Veal
Swine
Swine
Wet Layer
Medium 3
Medium 2
Medium 1
Large 2
Large 1
Medium 3
Medium 2
Medium 1
Large 2
Large 1
Medium 3
Medium 2
Medium 1
Large 1
Medium 3
Flush
Flush
Flush
Farrow-to-Finish
Farrow-to-Finish
Farrow-to-Finish
Farrow-to-Finish
Farrow-to-Finish
Grow-Finish
Grow-Finish
Grow-Finish
Grow-Finish
Grow-Finish
Flush
Flush
7,885
3,943
2,920
484,087
211,533
N/A
N/A
N/A
1,714,489
201,557
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
7,660
3,830
2,837
970,094
198,858
122,693
86,027
47,944
511,386
204,371
125,590
87,464
55,377
N/A
N/A
7,660
3,830
2,837
794,653
198,045
123,749
83,956
46,809
576,711
196,492
122,139
81,771
51,754
N/A
N/A
7,434
3,717
2,754
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
8,561
4,280
3,171
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
246,174
10,351
Option 6
Dairy
Swine
Large 1
Large 2
Large 1
Flush
Hose
Farrow-to-Finish
Grow-Finish
Farrow-to-Finish
Grow-Finish
327,667
50,421
484,087
1,714,489
211,533
201,557
321,554
52,230
970,094
511,386
198,858
204,371
319,299
49,975
794,653
576,711
198,045
196,492
312,463
51,060
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
360,378
59,368
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A- Not applicable.
2-74
-------
Table 2.3-3
Model Farm Sulfur Dioxide3 Emissions from Flaring (Option 5)
and Digesters (Option 6) (kg/yr)
Animal Type
Veal
Swine -
Farrow-to-finish
Swine -
Grow Finish
Dairyb - Flush
Dairyb - Hose
Wet Layer
Size Class
Medium 1
Medium 2
Medium 3
Large 2
Large 1
Medium 1
Medium 2
Medium 3
Large 2
Large 1
Medium 1
Medium 2
Medium 3
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Medium 3
Option 5 (Flare)
Region
Central
28
38
76
4,639
2,027
N/A
N/A
N/A
1,6431
1,932
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Mid-
Atlantic
27
37
73
9,297
1,906
459
824
1,176
4,901
1959
531
838
1204
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Midwest
27
37
73
7,616
1,898
449
805
1,186
5,527
1,883
1,171
784
496
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Pacific
26
36
71
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
South
30
41
82
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
2,359
99
Option 6 (Gas Turbine)
Region
Central
N/A
N/A
N/A
4,639
2,027
N/A
N/A
N/A
1,6431
1,932
N/A
N/A
N/A
3,140
483
N/A
N/A
Mid-
Atlantic
N/A
N/A
N/A
9,297
1,906
N/A
N/A
N/A
4,901
1,959
N/A
N/A
N/A
3,082
501
N/A
N/A
Midwest
N/A
N/A
N/A
7,616
1,898
N/A
N/A
N/A
5,527
1,883
N/A
N/A
N/A
3,060
479
N/A
N/A
Pacific
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
2,994
489
N/A
N/A
South
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
3,454
569
N/A
N/A
to
aAssumes biogas contains 0.36% (by volume) hydro;
bNumber of head is the sum of mature cows, heifers,
N/A - Not applicable.
'en sulfide and complete oxidation to SO2 during combustion.
and calves.
-------
Table 2.3-4
Model Farm Carbon Monoxide Emissions from Flaring (Option 5)
and Digesters (Option 6) (kg/yr)
Animal Type
Veal
Swine -
Farrow-to-finish
Swine -
Grow Finish
Dairya - Flush
Dairy3 - Hose
Wet Layer
Size Class
Medium 1
Medium 2
Medium 3
Large 2
Large 1
Medium 1
Medium 2
Medium 3
Large 2
Large 1
Medium 1
Medium 2
Medium 3
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Medium 3
Option 5 (Flare)
Region
Central
25
33
66
4,079
1,783
N/A
N/A
N/A
14,448
1,699
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Mid-
Atlantic
24
32
65
8,175
1,676
404
725
1,034
4,310
1,722
467
737
1,058
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Midwest
24
32
65
6,697
1,669
394
708
1,043
4,860
1,656
436
689
1,029
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Pacific
23
31
63
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
South
27
36
72
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
2,075
87
Option 6 (Gas Turbine)
Region
Central
N/A
N/A
N/A
1,251
547
N/A
N/A
N/A
4,431
521
N/A
N/A
N/A
847
130
N/A
N/A
Mid-
Atlantic
N/A
N/A
N/A
2,507
514
N/A
N/A
N/A
1,322
528
N/A
N/A
N/A
831
135
N/A
N/A
Midwest
N/A
N/A
N/A
2,054
512
N/A
N/A
N/A
1,490
508
N/A
N/A
N/A
825
129
N/A
N/A
Pacific
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
808
132
N/A
N/A
South
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
931
153
N/A
N/A
to
dumber of head is the sum of mature cows, heifers, and calves.
N/A - Not applicable.
-------
Table 2.3-5
Model Farm Nitrogen Oxide3 Emissions from Flaring (Option 5)
and Digesters (Option 6) (kg/yr)
Animal
Veal
Swine -
Farrow-to-finish
Swine -
Grow-Finish
Dairyb - Flush
Dairyb - Hose
Wet Layer
Size
Medium 1
Medium 2
Medium 3
Large 2
Large 1
Medium 1
Medium 2
Medium 3
Large 2
Large 1
Medium 1
Medium 2
Medium 3
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Medium 3
Option 5 (Flare)
Region
Central
28
38
76
4,656
2,035
N/A
N/A
N/A
16,491
1,939
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Mid-
Atlantic
27
37
74
9,331
1,913
461
827
1,180
4,919
1,966
533
841
1,208
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Midwest
27
37
74
7,643
1,905
450
808
1,190
5,547
1,890
498
787
1,175
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Pacific
26
36
72
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
South
30
41
82
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
2,368
100
Option 6 (Gas Turbine)
Region
Central
N/A
N/A
N/A
4,912
2,146
N/A
N/A
N/A
17,396
2,045
N/A
N/A
N/A
3,325
512
N/A
N/A
Mid-
Atlantic
N/A
N/A
N/A
9,843
2,018
N/A
N/A
N/A
5,189
2,074
N/A
N/A
N/A
3,263
530
N/A
N/A
Midwest
N/A
N/A
N/A
8,063
2,010
N/A
N/A
N/A
5,852
1,994
N/A
N/A
N/A
3,240
507
N/A
N/A
Pacific
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
3,170
518
N/A
N/A
South
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
3,657
602
N/A
N/A
to
aAssumes biogas contains 1.67% (by volume) NH3 and 30% is converted to NOx during combustion. Includes thermal and fuel emissions.
bNumber of head is the sum of mature cows, heifers, and calves.
N/A - Not applicable.
-------
s.o AIR EMISSIONS FROM LAND APPLICATION ACTIVITIES
Animal feeding operations generate air emissions from applying animal waste to
cropland. Air emissions are primarily generated when ammonia volatilizes at the point the
material is applied to land (Sutton et al., 2001). Additional amounts of nitrous oxide are emitted
from agricultural soils when nitrogen applied to the soil undergoes nitrification and
denitrification. Loss through denitrification depends upon the oxygen levels of the soil to which
manure is applied. Low oxygen levels, resulting from wet, compacted, or warm soil, increase the
amount of nitrate-nitrogen released to the air as nitrogen gas or nitrous oxide (OSUE, 2000a).
However, a study by Sharpe and Harper (1997), which compared losses of ammonia and nitrous
oxide from the sprinkler irrigation of swine effluent, concluded that ammonia emissions made a
larger contribution to airborne nitrogen losses. The analysis of air emissions from land
application activities focuses on the volatilization of nitrogen as both ammonia and nitrous oxide.
The amount of nitrogen released to the environment from applying animal waste
depends upon the rate and method in which it is applied, the quantity of material applied, and
site-specific factors such as air temperature, wind speed, and soil pH. There are insufficient data
to quantify the effect of site-specific factors; therefore, they are not addressed in this report.
This section presents information on the effect of application rate and method on
air emissions, as well as the methodology and results for air emission calculations based on the
quantity of animal waste and commercial nitrogen applied.
3.1 Data Inputs
The calculation of ammonia and nitrous oxide emissions from land application
activities uses the following data inputs:
• Ammonia emission factors for land application; and
• Amount of nitrogen in solid and liquid manure land applied on site and off
site.
3-1
-------
3.1.1
Ammonia Emission Factors
Table 3.1-1 presents nitrogen volatilization rates for six different land application
methods obtained from the Midwest Plan Service: Livestock Waste Facilities Handbook
(MWPS, 1983). As shown in this table, ammonia volatilizes at significantly different rates
depending on the method used to apply manure. When manure is applied via an irrigation
sprinkler, there is a greater surface area available from which the ammonia can volatilize.
Typical sprinkler systems include towed big gun, stationary big gun, traveling big gun, handmove
system, and surface system and towline system (MWPS, 1987). Midwest Plan Service reports an
ammonia loss of 15 to 40 percent when a sprinkler irrigation system is used to apply liquid
manure and a 10 to 25 percent ammonia loss when liquid manure is applied using a broadcast
spreader; however, incorporating manure into the soil immediately after application can
significantly reduce the amount of ammonia that volatilizes (MWPS, 1987). The manure can be
incorporated into the soil through plowing or any other method that mixes the manure and soil.
Data available from North Carolina State University suggests that ammonia emissions can be
reduced by 25 percent if manure is incorporated within 48 hours following application (NCCES,
1994b). If manure is directly injected, the total ammonia volatilization could be as low as 1 to 5
percent.
Table 3.1-1
Percentage of Nitrogen Volatilizing as Ammonia from Land Application
Application Method
Broadcast (solid)
Broadcast (liquid)
Broadcast (solid, immediate incorporation)
Broadcast (liquid, immediate incorporation)
Knifing (liquid)
Sprinkler irrigation (liquid)
Percent Loss3
15-30
10-25
1-5
1-5
0-2
15-40
Avg Percent Loss
22.5
17.5
3
3
1
27.5
aMWPS, 1983. Percentage of nitrogen applied that is lost within 4 days of application.
3-2
-------
Although facilities may change application techniques to conserve nitrogen,
thereby significantly reducing the amount of ammonia that volatilizes, such changes are not
dictated by the regulatory options. For this analysis, it is assumed that the application methods
used by animal feeding operations do not significantly change from baseline. Based on this
assumption, the rate at which ammonia volatilizes is not expected to change. If facilities choose
to alter their application procedures to limit ammonia volatilization, this analysis may
overestimate ammonia emissions due to manure application to cropland.
The application rate can also impact the volatilization rate if the amount of
manure applied significantly builds up on the field surface, causing a mulching effect. For
example, where manure is piled high enough to seal lower levels from exposure to the air,
ammonia does not volatilize at the normal rate and anaerobic decomposition occurs. For this
analysis, it is assumed that animal feeding operations do not apply enough waste under baseline
conditions to cause mulching.
Under a phosphorus-based application scenario, facilities must apply
supplemental nitrogen fertilizer to meet crop nutrient needs. The cost model assumes facilities
apply commercial ammonium nitrate or urea. Ammonia emissions from applied commercial
nitrogen are expected to be insignificant compared to those from applied manure. In a study
sited by the Ohio State Extension, the loss of ammonia from surface-applied urea due to
volatilization can range from 0 to 35 percent depending on the time of application until first
rainfall (OSUE, 2000b). For example, if 10 mm of rain falls within two days, no loss is
expected; however, if no rain falls within 6 days of application, losses can be greater than 30
percent. There is no significant danger of losing ammonium nitrate fertilizer to volatilization
because it quickly converts to nitrate-nitrogen, which does not volatilize. For the purpose of this
analysis, it is assumed that there are no significant losses from commercial fertilizer.
3-3
-------
3.1.2 Manure Nitrogen Applied to Land
Because it is assumed that application methods do not change from baseline, only
the quantity of waste applied to cropland on site and off site changes. On-site ammonia
volatilization decreases as the quantity of waste applied to cropland on site decreases. However,
since both on-site and off-site ammonia volatilization are considered, total ammonia
volatilization is expected to remain constant. The movement of waste off site changes the
location of the ammonia releases but not the quantity released.
ERG applies the same assumptions that are used in the cost methodology report
(U.S. EPA, 2002a) to estimate compliance costs for land application of animal waste. To
estimate the change in air emissions from applying nitrogen on and off site under baseline
conditions and for each regulatory option, the cost methodology defines three types of animal
feeding operations: Category 1 facilities currently have sufficient land to apply all manure on
site; Category 2 facilities currently do not have enough land to apply all manure on site; and
Category 3 facilities currently apply no manure on site. Neither Category 1 nor Category 3
facilities show a change in ammonia emission rates from the land application of animal manure
under the regulatory options. Category 2 facilities apply their waste agronomically under the
regulatory options, reducing the amount of manure applied on site and subsequently reducing
ammonia emissions.
For the baseline scenario, it is assumed that some Category 2 facilities over-apply
their manure and others apply manure agronomically and transport excess manure off site. Air
emissions from facilities that already agronomically apply manure do not change from baseline.
For facilities that over-apply manure under baseline conditions, the amount of nitrogen applied is
calculated using cost model estimates of the amount of excreted nitrogen that can be applied to
the field and the amount of nitrogen transported off site. Under each of the regulatory options,
the rate of manure application changes to meet either the nitrogen or phosphorus needs of the
crop. As a result, facilities that currently over-apply manure need to reduce the rate of
application, thereby reducing the total amount of manure applied on site, and decreasing the
amount of ammonia that volatilizes on site. Doing this, however, also increases the amount of
3-4
-------
manure applied off site and the amount of ammonia that volatilizes off site. In both the baseline
and post-regulatory scenarios, Category 1 facilities apply all of their waste on site and Category 3
facilities apply all of their waste off site.
Under Option 5, anaerobic lagoons at all swine, poultry and veal operations are
covered and the biogas vented to a flare. It is assumed that only 2 percent of the nitrogen
entering the lagoon is lost as ammonia in biogas (Martin, 2002), which is ultimately oxidized to
NOX via flaring. When the lagoon is uncovered (baseline and all other regulatory options), it is
calculated that 43.6 percent of the nitrogen entering the lagoon volatilizes as ammonia.
Therefore, under Option 5, the manure from covered lagoons that is subsequently land applied
contains more nitrogen, resulting in higher ammonia and nitrous oxide emissions to air.
Under Option 5 A , all manure scraped from beef and dairy drylots, and all
separated solids from beef, dairy and veal settling basins are composted. During the composting
process, ammonia-nitrogen is either volatilized as ammonia or converted to more stable forms of
nitrogen. Under baseline and all other regulatory options, the waste is sent to a stockpile (instead
of a compost pile), where 20 percent of the nitrogen is expected to volatilize as ammonia (Sutton,
2001). It is assumed that 30 percent of the nitrogen volatilizes from the compost pile (Eghball,
1997). Because more ammonia volatilizes from the compost pile than the stockpile, and because
the remaining nitrogen in the waste has been converted to a more stable form, the ammonia
losses from land application under Option 5 A are expected to decrease. Only 2 percent of the
nitrogen in land-applied solid waste volatilizes as ammonia under Option 5 A. The amount of
liquid waste that volatilizes as ammonia under Option 5 A remains the same as at baseline and
under all other regulatory options. The nitrous oxide emissions from land application also
decrease under Option 5 A.
The application rates for liquid manure are calculated separately. The cost model
first calculates the minimum number of acres that are needed to dispose of liquid manure based
on the hydraulic loading capacity of the cropland and the nutrient assimilative capacity of the
crops. The liquid manure is applied onsite first, until either the maximum hydraulic loading is
reached or the nutrient or phosphorous needs of the crop are met. If the maximum hydraulic
3-5
-------
loading capacity is reached, but there is still a need for nitrogen or phosphorous on site, solid
manure is applied (if available) until the nutrient assimilative capacity of the crops is met. Any
additional liquid or solid manure that cannot be land applied on site due to maximum hydraulic
loading or maximum nutrient capacity is transported and applied to land off site.
The cost model calculates the total amount of liquid and solid manure applied,
broken out by size group, region, Category 1, Category 2, and Category 3 operations, high,
medium, and low requirement operations, and the total amount of nitrogen and phosphorous in
the land-applied manure (U.S. EPA, 2002a). Table 3.1-2 presents the pounds of solid and liquid
nitrogen applied on and off site for each animal type under the different regulatory options.
3.2 Ammonia Emissions Methodology
Ammonia emissions resulting from the on-site and off-site application of manure
to land is dependent on the ammonia volatilization rate (based primarily on the method of
application) and the amount of manure that is applied both on site and off site.
3.2.1 Ammonia Volatilization Rates
The percent of nitrogen lost as ammonia as a result of land application activities
depends on the both the application method used and the rate of incorporation. Both the
application method and the rate of incorporation vary by animal operation; therefore, the percent
nitrogen losses are calculated separately for beef feedlots, dairies and poultry and swine
operations using Equation 3-1.
3-6
-------
Table 3.1-2
Industry-Level Pounds of Nitrogen Going to Land Application
Animal Type
Beef
Heifer
Dairy
Veal
Swine
Chicken
Option
Baseline
Option 1
Options 2-4, 7
Option 5A
Option 6
Baseline
Option 1
Options 2-4, 7
Option 5A
Option 6
Baseline
Option 1
Options 2-4, 7
Option 5A
Option 6
Baseline
Option 1
Options 2-4, 7
Option 5
Option 6
Baseline
Option 1
Options 2-4, 7
Option 5
Option 6
Baseline
Option 1
Options 2-4, 7
Option 5
Option 6
On Site
Solid
119,360,643
100,695,691
80,939,227
80,939,227
80,939,227
2,278,598
2,153,638
1,978,560
1,978,560
1,978,560
97,450,887
54,970,419
43,076,906
43,076,906
43,076,906
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
128,830,953
128,830,953
70,265,988
87,921,942
70,265,988
Liquid
35,053,523
34,922,656
35,246,900
35,246,900
35,246,900
1,978,404
1,977,582
1,978,076
1,978,076
1,978,076
38,646,497
30,391,950
28,987,938
28,987,938
28,987,938
167,223
167,223
167,223
346,204
167,223
92,880,272
92,880,272
171,863,826
166,384,460
72,714,440
7,535,132
7,535,132
25,191,086
51,425,854
25,191,086
Off Site
Solid
261,574,770
280,239,740
299,996,188
299,996,188
299,996,188
255,707
380,667
555,745
555,745
555,745
39,922,164
82,402,634
94,296,148
94,296,148
94,296,148
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
275,739,455
275,739,455
172,559,277
201,089,618
172,559,277
Liquid
18,753,422
18,884,289
18,560,047
18,560,047
18,560,047
224,271
225,093
224,600
224,600
224,600
12,110,681
20,365,228
21,769,240
21,769,240
21,769,240
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
51,782,476
51,782,476
76,230,805
194,592,872
39,819,251
15,933,802
15,933,802
44,464,142
20,905,520
44,464,142
3-7
-------
Table 3.1-2 (Continued)
Animal Type
Turkey
Option
Baseline
Option 1
Options 2-4, 7
Option 5
Option 6
On Site
Solid
47,770,936
47,770,936
17,220,939
17,220,939
17,220,939
Liquid
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Off Site
Solid
149,239,024
149,239,024
32,023,445
32,023,445
32,023,445
Liquid
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
3-8
-------
% N Lost from Application =
(% Incorporated x Average % Loss) + (% Land Applied x Average % Loss)
[3-1]
where:
% Incorporated
Average % Loss
Yo Land Applied
The percentage of land-applied manure that is
incorporated into the soil immediately after
application.
The average percentage of the ammonia lost from
the land-application method used, obtained from
Table 3.2-1. (This value is calculated by averaging
the minimum and maximum percent loss for each
application method.)
The percentage of land-applied manure that is
surface applied.
Table 3.2-1 presents the animal-specific volatilization rates.
Table 3.2-1
Percentage of Nitrogen Volatilizing as Ammonia from Land Application by
Animal Type
Animal Type
Beef & Dairy
Poultry
Swine (Large)
Swine (Medium)
Percent Loss
Solid
17%
20%
-
-
Liquid
20%
15%
20%
23%
3-9
-------
% N Lost from Application =
(% Incorporated x Average % Loss) + (% Land Applied x Average % Loss) [3-1]
where:
% Incorporated = The percent of land applied manure that is
incorporated into the soil immediately after
application.
Average % Loss = The average percent of the ammonia lost from the
land application method used, obtained from Table
3.2-1. (This value is calculated by averaging the
minimum and maximum percent loss for each
application method.)
% Land Applied = The percent of land applied manure that is surface
applied.
Beef Feedlots and Dairies
For beef feedlots and dairies, it is assumed that 30 percent of the waste being land
applied is incorporated and 70 percent of the waste is surface applied, assuming a sprinkler for
liquid waste. Therefore, the expected nitrogen losses are calculated as follows, using the
emission factors from Table 3.1-1:
% N lost from liquid waste application = (30% x 3%) + (70% x 27.5%) = 20%
% N lost from solid waste application = (30% x 3%) + (70% x 22.5%) = 17%
Poultry Operations
For poultry operations, it is assumed that 15 percent of the waste being land
applied is incorporated and 85 percent of the waste is surface applied, assuming broadcast
spreading of liquid waste. Therefore, the expected nitrogen losses are calculated as follows,
using the emission factors from Table 3.1-1:
% N lost from liquid waste application = (15% x 3%) + (85% x 17.5%) = 15%
% N lost from solid waste application = (15% x 3%) + (85% x 22.5%) = 20%
3-10
-------
Swine Operations
For Large swine operations, it is assumed that 30 percent of the waste being land
applied is incorporated and 70 of the waste is surface applied using a sprinkler system. For
Medium swine operations, it is assumed that 20 percent of the waste being land applied is
incorporated and 80 of the waste is surface applied using a sprinkler system. All swine waste
being land applied is liquid waste. Therefore, the expected nitrogen losses are calculated as
follows, using the emission factors from Table 3.1-1:
% N lost from liquid waste application (Large) = (30% x 3%) + (70% x 27.5%) = 20%
% N lost from liquid waste application (Medium) = (20% x 3%) + (80% x 22.5%) = 23%
3.2.2 Calculation of Ammonia Emissions
Equations 3-2 through 3-5 are used to quantify ammonia emissions resulting from
the on-site and off-site land application of liquid and solid animal waste:
Ammonia Volatilization from Solid Waste, On Site (Ib/yr) = [3-2]
% N Lost from Solid Waste Application x (Solid Nitrogen Applied On Site)
Ammonia Volatilization from Solid Waste, Off Site (Ib/yr) = [3-3]
% N Lost from Solid Waste Application x (Solid Nitrogen Applied Off Site)
Ammonia Volatilization from Liquid Waste, On Site (Ib/yr) = [3-4]
% N Lost from Liquid Waste Application x (Liquid Nitrogen Applied On Site)
Ammonia Volatilization from Liquid Waste, Off Site (Ib/yr) = [3-5]
% N Lost from Liquid Waste Application x (Liquid Nitrogen Applied Off Site)
The total amount of ammonia volatilized on site and off site is calculated by
summing the amount of volatilized ammonia resulting from both solid and liquid waste
application. Appendix D presents an example calculation of the amount of ammonia volatilized
on and off site.
3-11
-------
3.2.3 Model Farm Ammonia Emissions
Tables 3.2-2 and 3.2-3 present the total amount of ammonia volatilized on site and
off site for each model farm by regulatory option and region. As discussed above, it is assumed
that reducing in on-site nitrogen application also reduces on-site ammonia volatilization, and
increasing off-site nitrogen application also increases off-site ammonia volatilization. These
assumptions hold true if the application method before and after regulatory implementation
remain the same.
3-12
-------
Table 3.2-2
Industry-Level On-Site Ammonia Emissions from Land Application of
Animal Waste by Regulatory Option (tons/yr)
Animal
Type
Size Class
Regulatory
Option
On-Site Ammonia Emissions (tons/yr)
Central
Mid-
Atlantic
Midwest
Pacific
South
Beef Large CAFOs
Large 2
Large 1
Baseline
Option 1
Options 2-4,7
Option 5A
Option 6
Baseline
Option 1
Options 2-4,7
Option 5A
Option 6
2,911
2,431
2,152
730
2,152
1,671
1,619
1,262
306
1,262
76
49
52
39
52
31
29
25
12
25
4,576
4,129
3,724
2,057
3,724
3,053
3,003
2,497
794
2,497
827
355
316
250
316
287
232
180
93
180
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Beef Medium CAFOs
Medium 3
Medium 2
Medium 1
Baseline
Option 1
Options 2-4, 7
Option 5A
Option 6
Baseline
Option 1
Options 2-4,7
Option 5A
Option 6
Baseline
Option 1
Options 2-4,7
Option 5A
Option 6
13.1
12.6
12.2
2.5
12.2
13.9
13.2
12.7
2.6
12.7
17.1
15.8
14.9
3.1
14.9
0.9
0.8
0.8
0.3
0.8
1.8
1.7
1.7
0.7
1.7
2.2
2.1
1.9
0.8
1.9
38.2
36.8
35.8
9.6
35.8
55.7
52.7
50.9
13.8
50.9
68.3
63.0
59.6
16.6
59.6
2.4
2.3
2.3
0.9
2.3
1.7
1.7
1.6
0.6
1.6
2.2
2.1
1.9
0.8
1.9
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.2
3-13
-------
Table 3.2-2 (Continued)
Animal
Type
Size Class
Regulatory
Option
On-Site Ammonia Emissions (tons/yr)
Central
Mid-
Atlantic
Midwest
Pacific
South
Dairy Large CAFOs
Large 1
Baseline
Option 1
Options 2-4,7
Option 5A
Option 6
2,177
1,535
1,336
796
1,336
624
344
263
140
263
486
375
315
155
315
5,244
2,555
1,973
1,272
1,973
343
189
125
68
125
Dairy Medium CAFOs
Medium 3
Medium 2
Medium 1
Baseline
Option 1
Options 2-4, 7
Option 5A
Option 6
Baseline
Option 1
Options 2-4,7
Option 5A
Option 6
Baseline
Option 1
Options 2-4,7
Option 5A
Option 6
85
67
61
26
61
115
81
72
33
72
187
170
167
62
167
123
100
91
33
91
404
292
247
93
247
688
632
620
200
620
89
70
64
20
64
414
293
256
84
256
676
616
605
168
605
95
74
69
34
69
66
45
38
20
38
107
97
95
42
95
42
31
28
16
28
70
44
37
20
37
115
103
101
50
101
Heifers Large CAFOs
Large 1
Baseline
Option 1
Options 2-4,7
Option 5A
Option 6
172
167
160
60
160
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
129
126
121
111
121
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
3-14
-------
Table 3.2-2 (Continued)
Animal
Type
Size Class
Regulatory
Option
On-Site Ammonia Emissions (tons/yr)
Central
Mid-
Atlantic
Midwest
Pacific
South
Heifers Medium CAFOs
Medium 3
Medium 2
Medium 1
Baseline
Option 1
Options 2-4, 7
Option 5A
Option 6
Baseline
Option 1
Options 2-4,7
Option 5A
Option 6
Baseline
Option 1
Options 2-4,7
Option 5A
Option 6
6.3
6.2
6.0
2.2
6.0
11.2
10.9
10.5
3.9
10.5
2.8
2.7
2.5
1.0
2.5
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
5.5
5.5
5.4
3.0
5.4
9.8
9.5
9.2
5.2
9.2
47.4
45.4
44.1
25.2
44.1
2.2
2.2
2.3
1.9
2.3
3.8
3.7
3.8
3.2
3.8
1.6
1.5
1.5
1.3
1.5
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Veal Medium CAFOs
Medium 3
Medium 2
Medium 1
Baseline
Option 1
Options 2-4, 7
Option 5A
Option 6
Baseline
Option 1
Options 2-4,7
Option 5A
Option 6
Baseline
Option 1
Options 2-4,7
Option 5A
Option 6
0.9
0.9
0.9
1.9
0.9
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
0
0
0
0
0
14.6
14.6
14.6
30.2
14.6
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.9
0.4
0.7
0.7
0.7
1.4
0.7
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
3-15
-------
Table 3.2-2 (Continued)
Animal
Type
Size Class
Regulatory
Option
On-Site Ammonia Emissions (tons/yr)
Central
Mid-
Atlantic
Midwest
Pacific
South
Swine - Grow-Finish Large CAFOs
Large 2
Large 1
Baseline
Option 1
Options 2-4,7
Option 5
Option 6
Baseline
Option 1
Options 2-4,7
Option 5
Option 6
388
388
314
1,278
314
79
79
70
272
70
955
955
684
2,894
684
429
429
355
1,236
355
478
478
342
1,006
387
444
444
367
897
367
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Swine - Grow Finish Medium CAFOs
Medium 3
Medium 2
Medium 1
Baseline
Option 1
Options 2-4, 7
Option 5
Option 6
Baseline
Option 1
Options 2-4,7
Option 5
Option 6
Baseline
Option 1
Options 2-4,7
Option 5
Option 6
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
20
20
18
58
18
11
11
10
31
10
14
14
13
38
13
44
44
39
89
39
52
52
48
103
48
64
64
59
127
59
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
3-16
-------
Table 3.2-2 (Continued)
Animal
Type
Size Class
Regulatory
Option
On-Site Ammonia Emissions (tons/yr)
Central
Mid-
Atlantic
Midwest
Pacific
South
Swine - Farrow-to-Finish Large CAFOs
Large 2
Large 1
Baseline
Option 1
Options 2-4,7
Option 5
Option 6
Baseline
Option 1
Options 2-4,7
Option 5
Option 6
195
195
164
676
164
131
131
120
450
120
1,283
1,283
973
3,998
973
254
254
222
755
222
1,913
1,913
1,451
4,224
1,627
991
991
865
2,106
865
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Swine - Farrow-to-Finish Medium CAFOs
Medium 3
Medium 2
Medium 1
Baseline
Option 1
Options 2-4, 7
Option 5
Option 6
Baseline
Option 1
Options 2-4,7
Option 5
Option 6
Baseline
Option 1
Options 2-4,7
Option 5
Option 6
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
16
16
14
47
14
19
19
18
56
18
21
21
19
60
19
88
88
80
185
80
139
139
130
291
130
151
151
142
317
142
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
3-17
-------
Table 3.2-2 (Continued)
Animal
Type
Size Class
Regulatory
Option
On-Site Ammonia Emissions (tons/yr)
Central
Mid-
Atlantic
Midwest
Pacific
South
Broilers Large CAFOs
Large 2
Large 1
Baseline
Option 1
Options 2-4,7
Option 5
Option 6
Baseline
Option 1
Options 2-4,7
Option 5
Option 6
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
1,399
1,399
1,014
1,014
1,014
846
846
615
615
615
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
3,404
3,404
2,780
2,780
2,780
1,709
1,709
1,398
1,398
1,398
Broilers Medium CAFOs
Medium 3
Medium 2
Medium 1
Baseline
Option 1
Options 2-4, 7
Option 5
Option 6
Baseline
Option 1
Options 2-4,7
Option 5
Option 6
Baseline
Option 1
Options 2-4,7
Option 5
Option 6
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
95
95
71
71
71
69
69
52
52
52
40
40
30
30
30
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
190
190
158
158
158
125
125
103
103
103
63
63
53
53
53
3-18
-------
Table 3.2-2 (Continued)
Animal
Type
Size Class
Regulatory
Option
On-Site Ammonia Emissions (tons/yr)
Central
Mid-
Atlantic
Midwest
Pacific
South
Layer - Dry Large CAFOs
Large 2
Large 1
Baseline
Option 1
Options 2-4,7
Option 5
Option 6
Baseline
Option 1
Options 2-4,7
Option 5
Option 6
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
1,180
1,180
842
842
842
2,365
2,365
1,639
1,639
1,639
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
336
336
272
272
272
1,040
1,040
827
827
827
Layer - Dry Medium CAFOs
Medium 3
Medium 2
Medium 1
Baseline
Option 1
Options 2-4, 7
Option 5
Option 6
Baseline
Option 1
Options 2-4,7
Option 5
Option 6
Baseline
Option 1
Options 2-4,7
Option 5
Option 6
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
1.4
1.4
1.0
1.0
1.0
4.9
4.9
3.4
3.4
3.4
6.9
6.9
5.3
5.3
5.3
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
0.8
0.8
0.7
0.7
0.7
3.2
3.2
2.6
2.6
2.6
6.0
6.0
5.1
5.1
5.1
Layer - Wet Large CAFOs
Large 1
Baseline
Option 1
Options 2-4,7
Option 5
Option 6
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
564
564
479
3,573
479
3-19
-------
Table 3.2-2 (Continued)
Animal
Type
Size Class
Regulatory
Option
On-Site Ammonia Emissions (tons/yr)
Central
Mid-
Atlantic
Midwest
Pacific
South
Layer - Wet Medium CAFOs
Medium 3
Baseline
Option 1
Options 2-4, 7
Option 5
Option 6
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
1.5
1.5
1.3
10.0
1.3
Turkey Large CAFOs
Large 1
Baseline
Option 1
Options 2-4,7
Option 5
Option 6
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
1,011
1,011
692
692
1,011
1,454
1,454
995
995
1,454
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Turkey Medium CAFOs
Medium 3
Medium 2
Medium 1
Baseline
Option 1
Options 2-4, 7
Option 5
Option 6
Baseline
Option 1
Options 2-4,7
Option 5
Option 6
Baseline
Option 1
Options 2-4,7
Option 5
Option 6
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
9.0
9.0
5.7
5.7
5.7
12.5
12.5
8.1
8.1
8.1
13.7
13.7
8.9
8.9
8.9
5.1
5.1
3.3
3.3
3.3
6.8
6.8
4.4
4.4
4.4
7.3
7.3
4.7
4.7
4.7
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A - Not Applicable.
3-20
-------
Table 3.2-3
Industry-Level Off-Site Ammonia Emissions from Land Application of
Animal Waste by Regulatory Option (tons/yr)
Animal
Type
Size Class
Regulatory
Option
Off-Site Ammonia Emissions (tons/yr)
Central
Mid-
Atlantic
Midwest
Pacific
South
Beef Large CAFOs
Large 2
Large 1
Baseline
Option 1
Options 2-4,7
Option 5A
Option 6
Baseline
Option 1
Options 2-4,7
Option 5A
Option 6
7,130
7,610
7,888
1,233
7,888
602
654
1,011
138
1,011
141
168
166
43
166
10
12
17
4
17
14,396
14,843
15,248
2,829
15,248
1,250
1,300
1,806
314
1,806
529
1,001
1,041
259
1,041
36
91
143
29
143
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Beef Medium CAFOs
Medium 3
Medium 2
Medium 1
Baseline
Option 1
Options 2-4, 7
Option 5A
Option 6
Baseline
Option 1
Options 2-4,7
Option 5A
Option 6
Baseline
Option 1
Options 2-4,7
Option 5A
Option 6
1.0
1.4
1.8
0.3
1.8
1.0
1.7
2.2
0.3
2.2
1.3
2.5
3.5
0.5
3.5
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.1
0.3
0.2
0.3
0.5
0.1
0.5
2.9
4.3
5.2
1.0
5.2
4.2
7.1
9.0
1.6
9.0
5.1
10.5
13.9
2.4
13.9
0.2
0.3
0.3
0.1
0.3
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.1
0.3
0.2
0.3
0.5
0.1
0.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.1
3-21
-------
Table 3.2-3 (Continued)
Animal
Type
Size Class
Regulatory
Option
Off-Site Ammonia Emissions (tons/yr)
Central
Mid-
Atlantic
Midwest
Pacific
South
Dairy Large CAFOs
Large 1
Baseline
Option 1
Options 2-4,7
Option 5A
Option 6
1,580
2,222
2,421
638
2,421
283
564
645
179
645
415
526
586
122
586
1,479
4,168
4,750
1,674
4,750
265
419
483
223
483
Dairy Medium CAFOs
Medium 3
Medium 2
Medium 1
Baseline
Option 1
Options 2-4, 7
Option 5A
Option 6
Baseline
Option 1
Options 2-4,7
Option 5A
Option 6
Baseline
Option 1
Options 2-4,7
Option 5A
Option 6
14
31
37
8
37
19
53
62
13
62
30
47
50
13
50
26
50
59
11
59
94
207
252
52
252
126
181
194
43
194
14
33
39
7
39
67
188
226
38
226
110
170
181
37
181
16
37
42
10
42
11
32
38
11
38
18
28
30
9
30
7
18
20
6
20
11
37
44
17
44
19
31
33
10
33
Heifers Large CAFOs
Large 1
Baseline
Option 1
Options 2-4,7
Option 5A
Option 6
21
26
33
9
33
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
16
19
24
15
24
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
3-22
-------
Table 3.2-3 (Continued)
Animal
Type
Size Class
Regulatory
Option
Off-Site Ammonia Emissions (tons/yr)
Central
Mid-
Atlantic
Midwest
Pacific
South
Heifers Medium CAFOs
Medium 3
Medium 2
Medium 1
Baseline
Option 1
Options 2-4, 7
Option 5A
Option 6
Baseline
Option 1
Options 2-4,7
Option 5A
Option 6
Baseline
Option 1
Options 2-4,7
Option 5A
Option 6
0.5
0.6
0.8
0.2
0.8
0.8
1.1
1.6
0.4
1.6
0.2
0.3
0.5
0.1
0.5
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
0.5
0.5
0.7
0.3
0.7
0.7
1.0
1.3
0.5
1.3
3.6
5.6
6.8
2.3
6.8
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.3
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.2
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Swine - Grow-Finish Large CAFOs
Large 2
Large 1
Baseline
Option 1
Options 2-4,7
Option 5
Option 6
Baseline
Option 1
Options 2-4,7
Option 5
Option 6
165
165
238
601
238
21
21
31
70
31
406
406
677
913
677
116
116
191
290
191
203
203
339
324
293
121
121
197
210
197
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Swine - Grow-Finish Medium CAFOs
Medium 3
Baseline
Option 1
Options 2-4, 7
Option 5
Option 6
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
4.7
4.7
7.0
12.1
7.0
10.3
10.3
15.3
18.3
15.3
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
3-23
-------
Table 3.2-3 (Continued)
Animal
Type
Size Class
Regulatory
Option
Off-Site Ammonia Emissions (tons/yr)
Central
Mid-
Atlantic
Midwest
Pacific
South
Swine - Grow-Finish Medium CAFOs (cont.)
Medium 2
Medium 1
Baseline
Option 1
Options 2-4,7
Option 5
Option 6
Baseline
Option 1
Options 2-4,7
Option 5
Option 6
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
2.3
2.3
3.1
5.9
3.1
2.8
2.8
3.9
7.4
3.9
10.7
10.7
14.7
19.6
14.7
13.2
13.2
18.2
24.3
18.2
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Swine - Farrow-to-Finish Large CAFOs
Large 2
Large 1
Baseline
Option 1
Options 2-4,7
Option 5
Option 6
Baseline
Option 1
Options 2-4,7
Option 5
Option 6
102
102
134
336
134
25
25
36
81
36
672
672
981
1,702
981
49
49
82
129
82
1,002
1,002
1,463
1,837
1,288
192
192
318
354
318
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Swine - Farrow-to-Finish Medium CAFOs
Medium 3
Medium 2
Baseline
Option 1
Options 2-4, 7
Option 5
Option 6
Baseline
Option 1
Options 2-4,7
Option 5
Option 6
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
2.4
2.4
3.8
6.4
3.8
2.2
2.2
3.4
6.0
3.4
13.6
13.6
21.2
25.7
21.2
16.4
16.4
24.8
31.5
24.8
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
3-24
-------
Table 3.2-3 (Continued)
Animal
Type
Size Class
Regulatory
Option
Off-Site Ammonia Emissions (tons/yr)
Central
Mid-
Atlantic
Midwest
Pacific
South
Swine - Farrow-to-Finish Medium CAFOs (cont.)
Medium 1
Baseline
Option 1
Options 2-4,7
Option 5
Option 6
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
2.4
2.4
3.7
6.5
3.7
17.9
17.9
27.0
34.3
27.0
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Broilers Large CAFOs
Large 2
Large 1
Baseline
Option 1
Options 2-4,7
Option 5
Option 6
Baseline
Option 1
Options 2-4,7
Option 5
Option 6
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
2,394
2,394
2,779
2,779
2,779
846
846
1,749
1,749
1,749
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
5,826
5,826
6,450
6,450
6,450
3,069
3,069
3,380
3,380
3,380
Broilers Medium CAFOs
Medium 3
Medium 2
Medium 1
Baseline
Option 1
Options 2-4, 7
Option 5
Option 6
Baseline
Option 1
Options 2-4,7
Option 5
Option 6
Baseline
Option 1
Options 2-4,7
Option 5
Option 6
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
194
194
218
218
218
141
141
159
159
159
82
82
92
92
92
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
388
388
421
421
421
254
254
275
275
275
130
130
140
140
140
3-25
-------
Table 3.2-3 (Continued)
Animal
Type
Size Class
Regulatory
Option
Off-Site Ammonia Emissions (tons/yr)
Central
Mid-
Atlantic
Midwest
Pacific
South
Layer - Dry Large CAFOs
Large 2
Large 1
Baseline
Option 1
Options 2-4,7
Option 5
Option 6
Baseline
Option 1
Options 2-4,7
Option 5
Option 6
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
4,508
4,508
4,846
4,846
4,846
5,377
5,377
6,103
6,103
6,103
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
1,283
1,283
1,347
1,347
1,347
2,363
2,363
2,576
2,576
2,576
Layer - Dry Medium CAFOs
Medium 3
Medium 2
Medium 1
Baseline
Option 1
Options 2-4, 7
Option 5
Option 6
Baseline
Option 1
Options 2-4,7
Option 5
Option 6
Baseline
Option 1
Options 2-4,7
Option 5
Option 6
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
3.2
3.2
3.6
3.6
3.6
11.2
11.2
12.8
12.8
12.8
12.6
12.6
14.2
14.2
14.2
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
1.9
1.9
2.1
2.1
2.1
7.3
7.3
8.0
8.0
8.0
10.9
10.9
11.8
11.8
11.8
Layer - Wet Large CAFOs
Large 1
Baseline
Option 1
Options 2-4,7
Option 5
Option 6
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
1,192
1,192
1,276
2,396
1,276
3-26
-------
Table 3.2-3 (Continued)
Animal
Type
Size Class
Regulatory
Option
Off-Site Ammonia Emissions (tons/yr)
Central
Mid-
Atlantic
Midwest
Pacific
South
Layer - Wet Medium CAFOs
Medium 3
Baseline
Option 1
Options 2-4, 7
Option 5
Option 6
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
3.1
3.1
3.3
6.0
3.3
Turkey Large CAFOs
Large 1
Baseline
Option 1
Options 2-4,7
Option 5
Option 6
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
1,794
1,794
2,113
2,113
2,113
2,581
2,581
3,040
3,040
3,040
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Turkey Medium CAFOs
Medium 3
Medium 2
Medium 1
Baseline
Option 1
Options 2-4, 7
Option 5
Option 6
Baseline
Option 1
Options 2-4,7
Option 5
Option 6
Baseline
Option 1
Options 2-4,7
Option 5
Option 6
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
13.3
13.3
16.5
16.5
16.5
15.8
15.8
20.2
20.2
20.2
17.3
17.3
22.1
22.1
22.1
7.6
7.6
9.4
9.4
9.4
8.6
8.6
11.0
11.0
11.0
9.2
9.2
11.8
11.8
11.8
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A - Not Applicable.
3-27
-------
3.3 Nitrous Oxide Emissions Methodology
Nitrous oxide emissions resulting from the on-site and off-site application of
manure to land also depends upon the amount of manure nitrogen applied, which was determined
as described in Section 3.1.2.
3.3.1 Calculation of Nitrous Oxide Emissions
ERG calculates nitrous oxide emissions based on the methodology described in
the Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2000 (U.S. EPA, 2002b). This
methodology estimates that 1.25 percent of the nitrogen that is land applied but does not
volatilize to ammonia will be emitted as nitrous oxide. It is also assumed that one percent of the
nitrogen that volatilizes as ammonia will eventually become nitrous oxide.
Based on the methodology above, Equation 3-6 is used to quantify nitrous oxide
losses from on-site application of solid waste:
Nitrous Oxide Emissions from Solid Waste, On Site (Ib/yr) =
44 N,0
(1 - % N Lost from Solid Waste Application) x (Solid Nitrogen Applied On Site) x 1.25% x L_ + „„
44 N,0
(% N Lost from Solid Waste Application) x (Solid Nitrogen Applied On Site) x 1% x L_
Equation 3-6 can be modified to calculate losses from solid and liquid waste, both
on site and off site, as shown for the ammonia volatilization calculations above.
The total amount of nitrous oxide emitted on site and off site is calculated by
summing the emissions resulting from both solid and liquid waste application. Appendix D
presents an example calculation of the amount of nitrous oxide emitted on site and off site.
3-28
-------
3.3.2 Model Farm Nitrous Oxide Emissions
Tables 3.3-1 and 3.3-2 present the total amount of nitrous oxide emitted on site
and off site for each model farm by regulatory option and region. It is assumed that reducing on-
site nitrogen application also reduces on-site nitrous oxide emissions, and increasing off-site
nitrogen application also increases off-site nitrous oxide emissions. These assumptions hold true
if the application method before and after regulatory implementation remains the same.
3-29
-------
Table 3.3-1
Industry-Level On-Site Nitrous Oxide Emissions from Land Application of
Animal Waste by Regulatory Option (Mg CO2Eq./yr)
Animal
Type
Size Class
Regulatory
Option
On-Site Nitrous Oxide Emissions (Mg CO2 Eq./yr)
Central
Mid-
Atlantic
Midwest
Pacific
South
Beef Large CAFOs
Large 2
Large 1
Baseline
Option 1
Options 2-4,7
Option 5A
Option 6
Baseline
Option 1
Options 2-4,7
Option 5A
Option 6
91,044
73,659
64,919
66,490
64,919
53,040
49,935
38,752
39,808
38,752
2,249
1,348
1,433
1,447
1,433
956
856
722
737
722
137,360
120,669
107,949
109,791
107,949
95,619
91,637
75,624
77,506
75,624
25,363
9,971
8,729
8,802
8,729
8,811
6,907
5,266
5,363
5,266
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Beef Medium CAFOs
Medium 3
Medium 2
Medium 1
Baseline
Option 1
Options 2-4, 7
Option 5A
Option 6
Baseline
Option 1
Options 2-4,7
Option 5A
Option 6
Baseline
Option 1
Options 2-4,7
Option 5A
Option 6
405
391
379
389
379
431
409
394
405
394
528
489
459
473
459
26
25
24
25
24
54
52
50
51
50
66
61
57
59
57
1,170
1,125
1,096
1,125
1,096
1,704
1,613
1,554
1,595
1,554
2,091
1,923
1,817
1,864
1,817
72
70
67
69
67
52
50
47
48
47
67
62
57
59
57
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
6
6
6
8
7
7
7
7
3-30
-------
Table 3.3-1 (Continued)
Animal
Type
Size Class
Regulatory
Option
On-Site Nitrous Oxide Emissions (Mg CO2 Eq./yr)
Central
Mid-
Atlantic
Midwest
Pacific
South
Dairy Large CAFOs
Large 1
Baseline
Option 1
Options 2-4,7
Option 5A
Option 6
65,821
44,670
38,420
39,017
38,420
19,165
10,133
7,640
7,775
7,640
14,931
11,123
9,238
9,415
9,238
158,583
73,901
56,180
56,954
56,180
10,245
5,480
3,624
3,687
3,624
Dairy Medium CAFOs
Medium 3
Medium 2
Medium 1
Baseline
Option 1
Options 2-4, 7
Option 5A
Option 6
Baseline
Option 1
Options 2-4,7
Option 5A
Option 6
Baseline
Option 1
Options 2-4,7
Option 5A
Option 6
2,551
2,002
1,808
1,846
1,808
3,456
2,406
2,114
2,157
2,114
5,626
5,103
5,002
5,118
5,002
3,747
3,010
2,723
2,787
2,723
12,271
8,802
7,382
7,552
7,382
20,880
19,148
18,749
19,213
18,749
2,711
2,142
1,941
1,990
1,941
12,681
8,925
7,721
7,910
7,721
20,683
18,809
18,455
18,938
18,455
2,851
2,195
2,018
2,056
2,018
1,965
1,327
1,116
1,136
1,116
3,204
2,885
2,817
2,877
2,817
1,230
902
823
837
823
2,066
1,289
1,086
1,105
1,086
3,396
3,004
2,943
2,999
2,943
Heifers Large CAFOs
Large 1
Baseline
Option 1
Options 2-4,7
Option 5A
Option 6
5,163
5,018
4,791
4,901
4,791
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
3,524
3,428
3,261
3,273
3,261
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
3-31
-------
Table 3.3-1 (Continued)
Animal
Type
Size Class
Regulatory
Option
On-Site Nitrous Oxide Emissions (Mg CO2 Eq./yr)
Central
Mid-
Atlantic
Midwest
Pacific
South
Heifers Medium CAFOs
Medium 3
Medium 2
Medium 1
Baseline
Option 1
Options 2-4, 7
Option 5A
Option 6
Baseline
Option 1
Options 2-4,7
Option 5A
Option 6
Baseline
Option 1
Options 2-4,7
Option 5A
Option 6
189
187
181
185
181
338
329
315
322
315
83
80
74
76
74
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
161
159
155
158
155
284
276
265
270
265
1,378
1,314
1,275
1,296
1,275
60
59
62
62
62
103
100
104
104
104
43
41
41
41
41
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Veal Medium CAFOs
Medium 3
Medium 2
Medium 1
Baseline
Option 1
Options 2-4, 7
Option 5A
Option 6
Baseline
Option 1
Options 2-4,7
Option 5A
Option 6
Baseline
Option 1
Options 2-4,7
Option 5A
Option 6
24.2
24.2
24.2
50.1
24.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
2.5
1.2
0.9
0.9
0.9
1.9
0.9
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.7
0.4
387.4
387.4
387.4
802.0
387.4
11.6
11.6
11.6
24.1
11.6
17.8
17.8
17.8
36.8
17.8
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
3-32
-------
Table 3.3-1 (Continued)
Animal
Type
Size Class
Regulatory
Option
On-Site Nitrous Oxide Emissions (Mg CO2 Eq./yr)
Central
Mid-
Atlantic
Midwest
Pacific
South
Swine - Grow-Finish Large CAFOs
Large 2
Large 1
Baseline
Option 1
Options 2-4,7
Option 5
Option 6
Baseline
Option 1
Options 2-4,7
Option 5
Option 6
7,165
7,165
5,809
23,610
5,809
1,459
1,459
1,291
5,021
1,291
17,652
17,652
12,640
53,476
12,640
7,925
7,925
6,556
22,834
6,556
8,830
8,830
6,323
18,600
7,158
8,204
8,204
6,787
16,574
6,787
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Swine - Grow-Finish Medium CAFOs
Medium 3
Medium 2
Medium 1
Baseline
Option 1
Options 2-4, 7
Option 5
Option 6
Baseline
Option 1
Options 2-4,7
Option 5
Option 6
Baseline
Option 1
Options 2-4,7
Option 5
Option 6
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
328
328
291
934
291
177
177
163
502
163
219
219
202
621
202
715
715
634
1,432
634
837
837
771
1,662
771
1,036
1,036
954
2,055
954
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
3-33
-------
Table 3.3-1 (Continued)
Animal
Type
Size Class
Regulatory
Option
On-Site Nitrous Oxide Emissions (Mg CO2 Eq./yr)
Central
Mid-
Atlantic
Midwest
Pacific
South
Swine - Farrow-to-Finish Large CAFOs
Large 2
Large 1
Baseline
Option 1
Options 2-4,7
Option 5
Option 6
Baseline
Option 1
Options 2-4,7
Option 5
Option 6
3,611
3,611
3,030
12,492
3,030
2,417
2,417
2,212
8,320
2,212
23,702
23,702
17,983
73,891
17,983
4,695
4,695
4,098
13,960
4,098
35,346
35,346
26,817
78,069
30,064
18,318
18,318
15,986
38,920
15,986
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Swine - Farrow-to-Finish Medium CAFOs
Medium 3
Medium 2
Medium 1
Baseline
Option 1
Options 2-4, 7
Option 5
Option 6
Baseline
Option 1
Options 2-4,7
Option 5
Option 6
Baseline
Option 1
Options 2-4,7
Option 5
Option 6
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
253
253
231
752
231
305
305
287
898
287
332
332
312
978
312
1,422
1,422
1,299
3,000
1,299
2,243
2,243
2,106
4,706
2,106
2,446
2,446
2,297
5,132
2,297
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
3-34
-------
Table 3.3-1 (Continued)
Animal
Type
Size Class
Regulatory
Option
On-Site Nitrous Oxide Emissions (Mg CO2 Eq./yr)
Central
Mid-
Atlantic
Midwest
Pacific
South
Broilers Large CAFOs
Large 2
Large 1
Baseline
Option 1
Options 2-4,7
Option 5
Option 6
Baseline
Option 1
Options 2-4,7
Option 5
Option 6
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
25,853
25,853
18,747
18,747
18,747
15,627
15,627
11,360
11,360
11,360
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
62,913
62,913
51,384
51,384
51,384
31,584
31,584
25,835
25,835
25,835
Broilers Medium CAFOs
Medium 3
Medium 2
Medium 1
Baseline
Option 1
Options 2-4, 7
Option 5
Option 6
Baseline
Option 1
Options 2-4,7
Option 5
Option 6
Baseline
Option 1
Options 2-4,7
Option 5
Option 6
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
1,755
1,755
1,306
1,306
1,306
1,279
1,279
952
952
952
735
735
549
549
549
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
3,519
3,519
2,918
2,918
2,918
2,303
2,303
1,910
1,910
1,910
1,167
1,167
971
971
971
3-35
-------
Table 3.3-1 (Continued)
Animal
Type
Size Class
Regulatory
Option
On-Site Nitrous Oxide Emissions (Mg CO2 Eq./yr)
Central
Mid-
Atlantic
Midwest
Pacific
South
Layer - Dry Large CAFOs
Large 2
Large 1
Baseline
Option 1
Options 2-4,7
Option 5
Option 6
Baseline
Option 1
Options 2-4,7
Option 5
Option 6
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
21,802
21,802
15,560
15,560
15,560
43,708
43,708
30,292
30,292
30,292
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
6,203
6,203
5,019
5,019
5,019
19,211
19,211
15,280
15,280
15,280
Layer - Dry Medium CAFOs
Medium 3
Medium 2
Medium 1
Baseline
Option 1
Options 2-4, 7
Option 5
Option 6
Baseline
Option 1
Options 2-4,7
Option 5
Option 6
Baseline
Option 1
Options 2-4,7
Option 5
Option 6
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
26
26
18
18
18
91
91
63
63
63
128
128
98
98
98
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
15
15
12
12
12
60
60
47
47
47
110
110
93
93
93
3-36
-------
Table 3.3-1 (Continued)
Animal
Type
Size Class
Regulatory
Option
On-Site Nitrous Oxide Emissions (Mg CO2 Eq./yr)
Central
Mid-
Atlantic
Midwest
Pacific
South
Layer - Wet Large CAFOs
Large 1
Baseline
Option 1
Options 2-4,7
Option 5
Option 6
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
13,719
13,719
11,662
86,961
11,662
Layer - Wet Medium CAFOs
Medium 3
Baseline
Option 1
Options 2-4, 7
Option 5
Option 6
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
37
37
32
244
32
Turkey Large CAFOs
Large 1
Baseline
Option 1
Options 2-4,7
Option 5
Option 6
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
18,677
18,677
12,784
12,784
12,784
26,873
26,873
18,393
18,393
18,393
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Turkey Medium CAFOs
Medium 3
Medium 2
Baseline
Option 1
Options 2-4, 7
Option 5
Option 6
Baseline
Option 1
Options 2-4,7
Option 5
Option 6
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
166
166
106
106
106
231
231
150
150
150
94
94
60
60
60
125
125
81
81
81
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
3-37
-------
Table 3.3-1 (Continued)
Animal
Type
Size Class
Regulatory
Option
On-Site Nitrous Oxide Emissions (Mg CO2 Eq./yr)
Central
Mid-
Atlantic
Midwest
Pacific
South
Turkey Medium CAFOs (cont)
Medium 1
Baseline
Option 1
Options 2-4,7
Option 5
Option 6
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
252
252
164
164
164
135
135
88
88
88
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
NA - Not Applicable.
3-38
-------
Table 3.3-2
Industry-Level Off-Site Nitrous Oxide Emissions from Land Application of
Animal Waste by Regulatory Option (Mg CO2Eq./yr)
Animal
Type
Size Class
Regulatory
Option
Off-Site Nitrous Oxide Emissions (Mg CO2 Eq./yr)
Central
Mid-
Atlantic
Midwest
Pacific
South
Beef Large CAFOs
Large 2
Large 1
Baseline
Option 1
Options 2-4,7
Option 5A
Option 6
Baseline
Option 1
Options 2-4,7
Option 5A
Option 6
228,725
237,186
245,926
253,279
245,926
19,351
20,436
31,618
32,582
31,618
4,397
5,149
5,064
5,199
5,064
303
375
508
522
508
459,063
460,192
472,912
486,632
472,912
39,659
40,111
56,124
57,772
56,124
16,216
30,672
31,914
32,777
31,914
1,089
2,770
4,411
4,537
4,411
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Beef Medium CAFOs
Medium 3
Medium 2
Medium 1
Baseline
Option 1
Options 2-4, 7
Option 5A
Option 6
Baseline
Option 1
Options 2-4,7
Option 5A
Option 6
Baseline
Option 1
Options 2-4,7
Option 5A
Option 6
30.5
45.0
57.0
58.7
57.0
32.4
53.9
69.6
71.6
69.6
39.7
78.9
108.2
111.5
108.2
2.2
3.0
3.8
3.9
3.8
4.8
7.1
9.4
9.6
9.4
6.2
10.4
14.5
14.9
14.5
88.0
133.3
162.1
166.7
162.1
128.3
219.7
277.9
286.0
277.9
157.4
324.8
431.3
444.0
431.3
5.4
8.0
10.4
10.7
10.4
3.9
6.5
8.9
9.1
8.9
5.0
9.9
14.5
14.9
14.5
0.5
0.8
1.0
1.1
1.0
0.5
0.9
1.1
1.2
1.1
0.6
1.3
1.8
1.8
1.8
3-39
-------
Table 3.3-2 (Continued)
Animal
Type
Size Class
Regulatory
Option
Off-Site Nitrous Oxide Emissions (Mg CO2 Eq./yr)
Central
Mid-
Atlantic
Midwest
Pacific
South
Dairy Large CAFOs
Large 1
Baseline
Option 1
Options 2-4,7
Option 5A
Option 6
49,203
67,788
74,038
76,007
74,038
8,786
17,168
19,662
20,176
19,662
13,096
16,215
18,100
18,613
18,100
44,728
125,237
142,958
146,357
142,958
7,990
12,403
14,259
14,547
14,259
Dairy Medium CAFOs
Medium 3
Medium 2
Medium 1
Baseline
Option 1
Options 2-4, 7
Option 5A
Option 6
Baseline
Option 1
Options 2-4,7
Option 5A
Option 6
Baseline
Option 1
Options 2-4,7
Option 5A
Option 6
415
965
1,159
1,192
1,159
563
1,613
1,905
1,959
1,905
916
1,439
1,540
1,581
1,540
798
1,535
1,823
1,876
1,823
2,883
6,351
7,771
7,991
7,771
3,841
5,573
5,971
6,138
5,971
441
1,010
1,211
1,247
1,211
2,064
5,820
7,025
7,232
7,025
3,367
5,241
5,595
5,754
5,595
464
1,120
1,297
1,333
1,297
320
958
1,170
1,200
1,170
522
840
908
932
908
200
528
607
622
607
336
1,113
1,317
1,347
1,317
553
944
1,005
1,031
1,005
Heifers Large CAFOs
Large 1
Baseline
Option 1
Options 2-4,7
Option 5A
Option 6
653
783
1,010
1,037
1,010
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
438
532
698
709
698
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
3-40
-------
Table 3.3-2 (Continued)
Animal
Type
Size Class
Regulatory
Option
Off-Site Nitrous Oxide Emissions (Mg CO2 Eq./yr)
Central
Mid-
Atlantic
Midwest
Pacific
South
Heifers Medium CAFOs
Medium 3
Medium 2
Medium 1
Baseline
Option 1
Options 2-4, 7
Option 5A
Option 6
Baseline
Option 1
Options 2-4,7
Option 5A
Option 6
Baseline
Option 1
Options 2-4,7
Option 5A
Option 6
16.4
18.1
24.3
25.0
24.3
25.4
34.8
48.3
49.7
48.3
6.3
9.9
15.2
15.6
15.2
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
14.5
15.7
20.1
20.6
20.1
21.4
29.9
40.6
41.6
40.6
103.7
167.8
206.7
211.7
206.7
4.5
5.7
2.7
2.6
2.7
7.7
10.5
6.9
6.9
6.9
3.2
5.0
4.7
4.8
4.7
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Swine - Grow-Finish Large CAFOs
Large 2
Large 1
Baseline
Option 1
Options 2-4,7
Option 5
Option 6
Baseline
Option 1
Options 2-4,7
Option 5
Option 6
3,044
3,044
4,400
11,101
4,400
396
396
564
1,286
564
7,498
7,498
12,510
16,865
12,510
2,152
2,152
3,521
5,366
3,521
3,751
3,751
6,258
5,997
5,423
2,228
2,228
3,645
3,883
3,645
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
3-41
-------
Table 3.3-2 (Continued)
Animal
Type
Size Class
Regulatory
Option
Off-Site Nitrous Oxide Emissions (Mg CO2 Eq./yr)
Central
Mid-
Atlantic
Midwest
Pacific
South
Swine - Grow-Finish Medium CAFOs
Medium 3
Medium 2
Medium 1
Baseline
Option 1
Options 2-4, 7
Option 5
Option 6
Baseline
Option 1
Options 2-4,7
Option 5
Option 6
Baseline
Option 1
Options 2-4,7
Option 5
Option 6
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
76
76
113
195
113
37
37
51
96
51
45
45
62
119
62
166
166
247
297
247
172
172
239
318
239
214
214
295
393
295
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Swine - Farrow-to-Finish Large CAFOs
Large 2
Large 1
Baseline
Option 1
Options 2-4,7
Option 5
Option 6
Baseline
Option 1
Options 2-4,7
Option 5
Option 6
1,892
1,892
2,473
6,219
2,473
468
468
673
1,491
673
12,417
12,417
18,137
31,459
18,137
909
909
1,507
2,380
1,507
18,517
18,517
27,046
33,955
23,799
3,548
3,548
5,880
6,541
5,880
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
3-42
-------
Table 3.3-2 (Continued)
Animal
Type
Size Class
Regulatory
Option
Off-Site Nitrous Oxide Emissions (Mg CO2 Eq./yr)
Central
Mid-
Atlantic
Midwest
Pacific
South
Swine - Farrow-to-Finish Medium CAFOs
Medium 3
Medium 2
Medium 1
Baseline
Option 1
Options 2-4, 7
Option 5
Option 6
Baseline
Option 1
Options 2-4,7
Option 5
Option 6
Baseline
Option 1
Options 2-4,7
Option 5
Option 6
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
39
39
61
104
61
36
36
55
97
55
39
39
59
105
105
220
220
343
416
343
265
265
401
509
401
289
289
437
555
555
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Broilers Large CAFOs
Large 2
Large 1
Baseline
Option 1
Options 2-4,7
Option 5
Option 6
Baseline
Option 1
Options 2-4,7
Option 5
Option 6
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
44,248
44,248
51,354
51,354
51,354
28,059
28,059
32,325
32,325
32,325
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
107,677
107,677
119,205
119,205
119,205
56,710
56,710
62,459
62,459
62,459
3-43
-------
Table 3.3-2 (Continued)
Animal
Type
Size Class
Regulatory
Option
Off-Site Nitrous Oxide Emissions (Mg CO2 Eq./yr)
Central
Mid-
Atlantic
Midwest
Pacific
South
Broilers Medium CAFOs
Medium 3
Medium 2
Medium 1
Baseline
Option 1
Options 2-4, 7
Option 5
Option 6
Baseline
Option 1
Options 2-4,7
Option 5
Option 6
Baseline
Option 1
Options 2-4,7
Option 5
Option 6
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
3,578
3,578
4,027
4,027
4,027
2,608
2,608
2,936
2,936
2,936
1,508
1,508
1,693
1,693
1,693
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
7,174
7,174
7,774
7,774
7,774
4,695
4,695
5,088
5,088
5,088
2,396
2,396
2,592
2,592
2,592
Layer - Dry Large CAFOs
Large 2
Large 1
Baseline
Option 1
Options 2-4,7
Option 5
Option 6
Baseline
Option 1
Options 2-4,7
Option 5
Option 6
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
83,308
83,308
89,550
89,550
89,550
99,371
99,371
112,786
112,786
112,786
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
23,703
23,703
24,887
24,887
24,887
43,678
43,678
47,609
47,609
47,609
3-44
-------
Table 3.3-2 (Continued)
Animal
Type
Size Class
Regulatory
Option
Off-Site Nitrous Oxide Emissions (Mg CO2 Eq./yr)
Central
Mid-
Atlantic
Midwest
Pacific
South
Layer - Dry Medium CAFOs
Medium 3
Medium 2
Medium 1
Baseline
Option 1
Options 2-4, 7
Option 5
Option 6
Baseline
Option 1
Options 2-4,7
Option 5
Option 6
Baseline
Option 1
Options 2-4,7
Option 5
Option 6
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
59
59
67
67
67
208
208
236
236
236
233
233
263
263
263
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
35
35
38
38
38
136
136
148
148
148
202
202
219
219
219
Layer - Wet Large CAFOs
Large 1
Baseline
Option 1
Options 2-4,7
Option 5
Option 6
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
29,010
29,010
31,067
58,318
31,067
Layer - Wet Medium CAFOs
Medium 3
Baseline
Option 1
Options 2-4, 7
Option 5
Option 6
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
76
76
81
139
81
3-45
-------
Table 3.3-2 (Continued)
Animal
Type
Size Class
Regulatory
Option
Off-Site Nitrous Oxide Emissions (Mg CO2 Eq./yr)
Central
Mid-
Atlantic
Midwest
Pacific
South
Turkey Large CAFOs
Large 1
Baseline
Option 1
Options 2-4,7
Option 5
Option 6
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
33,150
33,150
39,043
39,043
39,043
47,696
47,696
55,176
56,176
55,176
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Turkey Medium CAFOs
Medium 3
Medium 2
Medium 1
Baseline
Option 1
Options 2-4, 7
Option 5
Option 6
Baseline
Option 1
Options 2-4,7
Option 5
Option 6
Baseline
Option 1
Options 2-4,7
Option 5
Option 6
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
245
245
305
305
305
293
293
374
374
374
319
319
408
408
408
140
140
174
174
174
158
158
202
202
202
171
171
218
218
218
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A - Not Applicable.
3-46
-------
4.0 AIR EMISSIONS FROM VEHICLES
Animal feeding operations that transport their manure off site and/or compost
their manure on site use equipment (e.g., trucks, tractors) that release criteria air pollutants when
operated. This section presents the methodology and results for calculating the increased criteria
air pollutant emissions from off-site transportation and from composting manure on site. This
document does not present information on potential changes in criteria air pollutant emissions
that might arise from changes in commercial fertilizer manufacture and transport resulting from
the rule.
4.1 Off-Site Transportation
Criteria air emissions from the off-site transportation of animal manure are
evaluated for each of the seven regulatory options considered by EPA, as all options result in an
increase of off-site transportation of manure at some operations. The cost model computes costs
for three types of facilities:
• Category 1 operations have sufficient cropland to apply all manure on site;
• Category 2 operations do not have enough cropland to apply all waste on
site and may or may not currently transport waste; and
• Category 3 operations have no cropland and currently transport all manure
off site.
Because Category 1 operations emit no criteria air pollutants from vehicles at
baseline, nor will any regulatory options induce them to do so, there are no current or projected
emissions in criteria air emissions for this category. Category 2 operations, however, incur costs
for transporting manure off site, increasing the amount of criteria air pollutants generated by
these operations. Although Category 3 facilities currently transport their manure, a regulation
that requires phosphorous-based application rather than a nitrogen-based application may cause
facilities to transport their excess manure a further distance; therefore, the amount of criteria air
pollutants generated by these operations may increase for options that require phosphorus-based
4-1
-------
application. EPA calculated air emission estimates for the off-site transportation of manure for
all Category 2 facilities, as well as for Category 3 facilities that are expected to follow a
phosphorus-based application regime.
4.1.1 Emissions Methodology
The beef and dairy cost model analyzed two different waste transportation options
(U.S. EPA, 2002a). One considers the cost of purchasing trucks to transport waste, and the other
evaluates the cost of paying a contractor to haul the waste off site. Because of the different
methods used to estimate the costs of the two transportation options, two methods are used to
calculate air emissions. Estimates of air emissions from operations purchasing waste
transportation vehicles are based on the cost model calculations of the number of trucks
purchased and the annual number of miles traveled. Contract-hauling emissions estimates are
based on the cost model calculations of the annual amount of waste generated, the annual number
of miles traveled, and truck sizes. The assumptions and equations used in each of the options are
detailed below. Appendix E describes in detail the data and methodology used to calculate
emissions from vehicles used for off-site transportation.
The swine and poultry cost model assumes that all operations hire a contractor to
haul waste off site; therefore, emissions estimates are calculated using the contract-hauling
methodology (U.S. EPA, 2002a).
The following assumptions are common to both transportation methods (Jewell et
al., 1997):
Vehicles for manure transport are diesel-fueled;
Vehicles for manure transport have 300 brake-horsepower (bhp) engines;
Vehicles for manure transport travel at an average speed of 35 miles/hr;
Liquid manure is applied on site before solid manure;
4-2
-------
Liquid waste and semisolid waste are transported separately;
The amount of waste hauled off site depends on the rate at which nutrients
are applied (nitrogen (N)-based application versus phosphorus (P)-based
application); and
The reduction in volume typically obtained during composting is offset by
wheat, straw, and water added to facilitate composting.
Emission Factors
The number of trucks, number of trips per truck, amount of solid and liquid waste,
and transportation distance are all calculated in the cost model. Volatile organic compounds,
nitrogen oxides, and carbon monoxide emissions (presented in grams per mile traveled) are
calculated based on emission factors for diesel-fueled vehicles generated in MOBILE6 (U.S.
EPA, 2002c). These MOBILE6 emission factors differentiate between emissions generated from
solid waste haulers and liquid tanker trucks. Sulfur dioxide was not calculated here because
MOBILE6 only estimates emission factors for hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide, and oxides of
nitrogen (U.S. EPA, 2002a). The emission factor for particulate matter is listed in the AP-42
Manual (U.S. EPA, 1985) and does not differentiate between solid waste haulers and liquid
tanker trucks (in grams per brake horsepower-hour). Assuming that vehicles for manure
transport have 300 brake-horsepower (bhp) engines, and that they travel at an average speed of
35 miles per hour, the particulate matter emission factor can be expressed in units of grams per
mile, as shown in Equation 4-1. Table 4.1-1 presents all of these emission factors.
Purchase Matter Emission Factor (grams/miles) Miles (miles/yr) =
[4-1]
Purchase Matter Emission Factor (gm/bhp-hr) x (1 hr/35 miles) x 300 bhp
The amount of manure transported off site depends on the rate at which manure is applied
(nitrogen-based application or phosphorous-based application), treatment of the manure
(anaerobic digestion or no digestion), and whether or not the manure is composted.
4-3
-------
Table 4.1-1
Emission Factors for Diesel Vehicles
Criteria Air Pollutant
VOCsa
NOxa
coa
PMb
Vehicle Emission Factor (grams/mile)
Solid Waste Hauler
1.08
23.67
5.87
0.857
Liquid Waste Tanker
1.35
27.6
7.83
0.857
"Source: U.S. EPA. 2002. MOBILE6.
"Source: U.S. EPA. 1985. AP-42 Manual.
4.1.2 Transportation Methods
Four potential methods of transporting manure off site can be used for beef, dairy,
and heifer estimates: contract hauling, contract hauling with composting, purchasing a truck, and
purchasing a truck with composting. The cost model is designed to select the most cost-effective
method of transporting manure for each operation. The purchasing options consider the cost of
purchasing trucks to haul the wastes off site and the round trip distance the trucks must travel;
the contract options consider the cost of paying a contractor to haul the waste off site and the
one-way distance the trucks must travel.
To estimate the miles traveled for each transportation option, the cost model
performs calculations separately for the following variables: Category 2 versus Category 3,
purchasing trucks versus hiring a contract hauler, solid waste versus liquid waste, nitrogen-based
application versus phosphorous-based application.
Purchasing Trucks
Estimates of air emissions from operations purchasing waste transportation
vehicles are based on the cost model calculations of the number of trucks purchased at each
facility, the number of trips made, and the round trip miles traveled by each truck. The
4-4
-------
methodology used to calculate transport miles for purchasing a truck or purchasing a truck with
composting is provided in Equation 4-2.
Purchase Truck Transport Miles (miles/yr)
[4-2]
= Number of Trucks x Number of Trips per Truck (trips/yr) x Round Trip Miles per Trip (miles/trip)
The number of trucks, the number of trips per truck, and the miles per round trip each vary by
category, waste consistency, and nutrient management basis. Therefore, there are essentially
eight variations of this equation. When accounting for both purchasing a truck or purchasing a
truck with composting, the number of variations of the equation doubles to sixteen.
Contract Hauling
For the contract-hauling option, ERG conducted telephone interviews with waste-
hauling companies to estimate the size of the trucks used to transport both solid and liquid wastes
(ERG, 1999). The truck size estimates are used to determine the number of trips that the contract
hauler makes.
The hauling emission estimates are based on the cost model calculations of the
weight (Ibs) of waste being transported (converted to the number of trips per year by dividing by
an average size truck based on conversations with haulers), multiplied by the one-way hauling
distance. The methodology used to calculate miles traveled by contract haulers or contract
haulers with composting (for both liquid and solid waste) is provided in Equation 4-3.
Contract Truck Transport Miles, Solid Waste (miles/yr)
= Solid Waste (Ibs/yr) x (Round trip haul distance/2) (miles) t4'3!
Solid waste truck size (tons)
The total annual miles traveled (by both purchase truck and contract-hauling options) is
calculated for both Category 2 and Category 3 operations, broken out by solid and liquid waste.
ERG calculates these mileages using the total number of facilities, the cost model frequency
4-5
-------
factors for N-based and P-based application, cost model frequency factors for Category 2 and
Category 3 operations, the cost model frequency factor for N-based operations that already
transport off site at baseline, and the total miles traveled to transport either solid or liquid waste.
Table 4.1-2 presents the total miles traveled transporting solid and liquid waste for each animal
sector.
The amount of criteria air pollutants released annually is calculated using these
solid and liquid waste total annual miles, along with the emission factors listed in Table 4.1-1
and Equation 4-4. The emissions from each pollutant are calculated separately for both solid and
liquid waste transportation.
Total Pollutant, Emitted (tons)
Total Miles, Solid (miles) x Pollutant Emision Factor, Solid (grams/miles) [4-4]
(454 grams/pound) * (2000 pounds/ton)
Finally, the total pollutants emitted from the transportation of waste are calculated by summing
those generated while hauling solid waste and those generated while hauling liquid waste. A
sample calculation for total tons of pollutant emitted is shown in Equation 4-5.
Total Pollutant, Emitted (tons)
[4-5]
= Pollutant Emitted, Solid (tons) + Pollutant Emitted, Liquid (tons)
Tables 4.1-3 through 4.1-6 summarize the results of the transportation criteria air
pollution emission calculations for Category 2 and Category 3 operations by model farm,
regulatory option, and region. Transportation emissions are reported as the incremental increase
in criteria air pollutants from baseline for Category 2 and Category 3 operations. These tables
show that additional criteria air pollutants are released in all cases. Increased emissions from
Option 1 are less than the increase resulting from Options 2 through 7. The additional emissions
from Options 2 through 7 are a result of the P-based application rate. At this rate, additional
4-6
-------
Table 4.1-2
Industry Miles Traveled for Off Site Transportation
Animal Type
Beef
Heifer
Dairy
Swine
Chicken
Turkey
Option
Option 1
Options 2-4, 7
Option 5
Option 6
Option 1
Options 2-4, 7
Option 5
Option 6
Option 1
Options 2-4, 7
Option 5
Option 6
Option 1
Options 2-4, 7
Option 5
Option 6
Option 1
Options 2-4, 7
Option 5
Option 6
Option 1
Options 2-4, 7
Option 5
Option 6
Industry Miles
Solid
714,907
6,396,268
6,393,267
6,396,268
26,486
212,523
213,933
212,523
959,068
2,975,472
2,945,912
2,975,472
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
1,404,896
5,813,576
5,813,576
5,813,576
181,812
1,385,485
1,385,485
1,385,485
Liquid
335,475
7,003,664
7,003,664
7,003,664
1,223
123,068
123,068
123,068
27,757,298
60,203,111
58,723,328
60,203,111
1,284,633
21,953,750
11,325,047
21,147,101
192,111
642,423
260,993
642,423
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
4-7
-------
Table 4.1-3
Industry-Level Incremental VOC Emissions above Baseline from
Transportation of Manure Off Site by Regulatory Option (Ibs/yr)
Animal
Type
Size Class
Regulatory
Option
Region
Central
Mid-
Atlantic
Midwest
Pacific
South
Beef Large CAFOs
Large 2
Large 1
Option 1
Options 2-4,7
Option 5A
Option 6
Option 1
Options 2-4,7
Option 5A
Option 6
505.4
9,783.2
9,783.2
9,783.2
55.3
1,531.0
1,530.8
1,531.0
56.9
2,504.2
2,502.5
2,504.2
14.3
209.2
208.8
209.2
320.9
11,363.0
11,363.0
11,363.0
131.5
1,568.5
1,568.5
1,568.5
688.1
8,851.3
8,846.2
8,851.3
937.3
630.1
630.1
630.1
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Beef Medium CAFOs
Medium 3
Medium 2
Medium 1
Option 1
Options 2-4,7
Option 5A
Option 6
Option 1
Options 2-4,7
Option 5A
Option 6
Option 1
Options 2-4,7
Option 5A
Option 6
0.5
4.4
4.4
4.4
0.7
4.4
4.4
4.4
1.3
5.8
5.8
5.8
0.0
1.4
1.4
1.4
0.1
2.9
2.9
2.9
0.5
3.8
3.8
3.8
1.0
7.8
7.8
7.8
2.1
11.9
11.9
11.9
3.8
15.6
15.6
15.6
0.1
2.0
2.0
2.0
0.1
1.5
1.5
1.5
0.3
2.0
2.0
2.0
0.0
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.2
Dairy Large CAFOs
Large 1
Option 1
Options 2-4,7
Option 5A
Option 6
7,592.7
8,976.9
567.9
8,976.9
2,227.4
12,147.8
1,013.2
12,147.8
217.1
850.7
184.1
850.7
71,757.5
151,837.6
2,397.5
151,837.6
3,048.3
7,698.6
465.3
7,698.6
Dairy Medium CAFOs
Medium 3
Option 1
Options 2-4,7
Option 5A
Option 6
11.7
69.8
69.8
69.8
18.4
576.9
576.8
576.9
8.8
41.8
41.8
41.8
52.4
172.4
172.4
172.4
50.9
97.7
98.2
97.7
4-8
-------
Table 4.1-3 (Continued)
Animal
Type
Size Class
Regulatory
Option
Region
Central
Mid-
Atlantic
Midwest
Pacific
South
Dairy Medium CAFOs (cont.)
Medium 2
Medium 1
Option 1
Options 2-4,7
Option 5A
Option 6
Option 1
Options 2-4,7
Option 5A
Option 6
182.8
177.4
177.4
177.4
11.3
149.8
149.8
149.8
276.4
2,669.7
2,292.3
2,669.7
26.3
2,911.7
2,911.7
2,911.7
209.8
284.5
284.5
284.5
29.4
291.2
291.2
291.2
480.1
363.1
268.0
363.1
9.0
172.6
172.6
172.6
437.0
444.5
447.4
444.5
6.5
139.8
139.8
139.8
Heifer Large CAFOs
Large 1
Option 1
Options 2-4,7
Option 5A
Option 6
7.0
282.2
286.0
282.0
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
47.0
527.0
527.0
527.0
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Heifer Medium CAFOs
Medium 3
Medium 2
Medium 1
Option 1
Options 2-4,7
Option 5A
Option 6
Option 1
Options 2-4,7
Option 5A
Option 6
Option 1
Options 2-4,7
Option 5A
Option 6
0.4
5.3
5.2
5.3
0.9
8.8
80
.0
8.8
0.4
2.3
2.3
2.3
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
0.3
2.9
2.8
2.9
0.7
5.3
5.3
5.3
5.6
27.2
27.2
27.2
5.0
5.0
2.7
5.0
9.3
9.3
2.3
9.3
4.3
4.3
4.3
4.3
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Swine - Grow-Finish Large CAFOs
Large 2
Large 1
Option 1
Options 2-4,7
Option 5
Option 6
Option 1
Options 2-4,7
Option 5
Option 6
377.6
1,616.3
818.4
1,616.3
31.0
186.2
64.8
186.2
572.8
16,664.0
8,624.7
16,664.0
103.6
4,693.2
2,640.2
4,693.2
387.6
2,540.5
885.1
2,038.9
145.1
1,394.3
497.5
1,394.3
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
4-9
-------
Table 4.1-3 (Continued)
Animal
Type
Size Class
Regulatory
Option
Region
Central
Mid-
Atlantic
Midwest
Pacific
South
Swine-Grow Finish Medium CAFOs
Medium 3
Medium 2
Medium 1
Option 1
Options 2-4,7
Option 5
Option 6
Option 1
Options 2-4,7
Option 5
Option 6
Option 1
Options 2-4,7
Option 5
Option 6
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
2.8
147.0
91.9
147.0
1.0
64.7
44.1
64.7
1.2
80.0
54.5
80.0
8.2
86.2
34.4
86.2
6.2
77.0
36.0
77.0
7.7
95.3
44.6
95.3
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Swine - Farrow-to-Finish Large CAFOs
Large 2
Large 1
Option 1
Options 2-4,7
Option 5
Option 6
Option 1
Option 2
Option 5
Option 6
148.1
733.8
316.9
733.8
32.1
220.1
64.6
220.1
598.7
23,594.7
14,103.3
23,594.7
38.3
2,016.0
1,092.3
2,016.0
1,207.9
9,639.0
4,017.2
7,688.6
202.4
2,241.3
718.3
2,241.3
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Swine - Farrow-to-Finish Medium CAFOs
Medium 3
Medium 2
Medium 1
Option 1
Options 2-4,7
Option 5
Option 6
Option 1
Options 2-4,7
Option 5
Option 6
Option 1
Options 2-4,7
Option 5
Option 6
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
1.2
80.3
43.5
80.3
1.0
71.3
40.5
71.3
1.1
77.5
44.0
77.5
9.2
122.4
41.2
122.4
9.6
139.0
50.8
139.0
10.5
151.6
55.4
151.6
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
4-10
-------
Table 4.1-3 (Continued)
Animal
Type
Size Class
Regulatory
Option
Region
Central
Mid-
Atlantic
Midwest
Pacific
South
Broilers Large CAFOs
Large 2
Large 1
Option 1
Options 2-4,7
Option 5
Option 6
Option 1
Options 2-4,7
Option 5
Option 6
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
317.1
3,038.0
3,038.0
3,038.0
181.7
1,945.3
1,945.3
1,945.3
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
841.7
2,452.3
2,452.3
2,452.3
400.6
1,263.2
1,263.2
1,263.2
Broilers Medium CAFOs
Medium 3
Medium 2
Medium 1
Option 1
Options 2-4,7
Option 5
Option 6
Option 1
Options 2-4,7
Option 5
Option 6
Option 1
Options 2-4,7
Option 5
Option 6
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
20.0
248.0
248.0
248.0
14.0
181.0
181.0
181.0
8.0
105.0
105.0
105.0
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
43.0
153.0
153.0
153.0
28.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
13.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
Layers - Dry Large CAFOs
Large 2
Large 1
Option 1
Options 2-4,7
Option 5
Option 6
Option 1
Options 2-4,7
Option 5
Option 6
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
456.4
1,231.3
1,231.3
1,231.3
634.4
1,687.2
1,687.2
1,687.2
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
119.9
448.2
448.2
448.2
257.0
911.5
911.5
911.5
Layers - Dry Medium CAFOs
Medium 3
Option 1
Options 2-4,7
Option 5
Option 6
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
0.4
1.0
1.0
1.0
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
0.2
0.7
0.7
0.7
4-11
-------
Table 4.1-3 (Continued)
Animal
Type
Size Class
Regulatory
Option
Region
Central
Mid-
Atlantic
Midwest
Pacific
South
Layers - Dry Medium CAFOs (cont.)
Medium 2
Medium 1
Option 1
Options 2-4,7
Option 5
Option 6
Option 1
Options 2-4,7
Option 5
Option 6
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
1.3
3.5
3.5
3.5
1.8
4.2
4.2
4.2
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
0.8
2.8
2.8
2.8
1.5
4.3
4.3
4.3
Layers - Wet Large CAFOs
Large 1
Option 1
Options 2-4,7
Option 5
Option 6
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
582.2
1,947.6
791.4
1,947.6
Layers - Wet Medium CAFOs
Medium 3
Option 1
Options 2-4,7
Option 5
Option 6
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
1.7
5.2
1.9
5.0
Turkey Large CAFOs
Large 1
Option 1
Options 2-4,7
Option 5
Option 6
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
157.0
2,396.5
2,396.5
2,396.5
267.0
825.0
825.0
825.0
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Turkey Medium CAFOs
Medium 3
Medium 2
Medium 1
Option 1
Options 2-4,7
Option 5
Option 6
Option 1
Options 2-4,7
Option 5
Option 6
Option 1
Options 2-4,7
Option 5
Option 6
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
1.5
18.2
18.2
18.2
1.8
22.3
22.3
22.3
1.9
24.4
24.4
24.0
1.0
2.7
2.7
2.7
1.1
3.2
3.2
3.2
1.2
3.5
3.5
4.0
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A-Not Applicable.
4-12
-------
Table 4.1-4
Industry-Level Incremental NOX Emissions above Option 1 from
Transportation of Manure Off Site by Regulatory Option (Ibs/yr)
Animal
Type
Size Class
Regulatory
Option
Region
Central
Mid-
Atlantic
Midwest
Pacific
South
Beef Large CAFOs
Large 2
Large 1
Option 1
Options 2-4,7
Option 5A
Option 6
Option 1
Options 2-4,7
Option 5A
Option 6
11,076.5
206,875.1
206,875.2
206,875.1
1,212.7
33,060.0
33,059.5
33,060.0
1,148.9
50,428.9
50,392.6
50,428.9
288.7
4,271.6
4,263.4
4,271.6
7,033.6
237,277.7
237,277.7
237,277.7
2,692.3
33,508.8
33,508.8
33,508.8
15,081.1
179,345.1
179,233.1
179,345.1
18,900.1
13,123.2
13,123.2
13,123.2
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Beef Medium CAFOs
Medium 3
Medium 2
Medium 1
Option 1
Options 2-4,7
Option 5A
Option 6
Option 1
Options 2-4,7
Option 5A
Option 6
Option 1
Options 2-4,7
Option 5A
Option 6
10.7
93.6
93.6
93.6
15.8
94.3
94.3
94.3
28.8
125.7
125.7
125.7
0.4
29.5
29.5
29.5
1.1
60.2
60.2
60.2
9.2
77.6
77.6
77.6
22.7
166.4
166.4
166.4
45.9
254.7
254.7
254.7
84.0
334.4
334.4
334.4
2.6
42.3
42.3
42.3
2.6
31.1
31.1
31.1
6.9
41.7
41.7
41.7
0.2
3.4
3.4
3.4
0.2
3.0
3.0
3.0
2.2
5.0
5.0
5.0
Dairy Large CAFOs
Large 1
Option 1
Options 2-4,7
Option 5A
Option 6
152,432.3
181,171.3
12,354.0
181,171.3
44,735.2
244,437.1
21,488.7
244,437.1
4,421.1
17,382.0
3,986.0
17,382.0
1,438,025.9
3,042,796.0
51,461.2
3,042,796.0
61,057.1
154,340.7
9,552.2
154,340.7
Dairy Medium CAFOs
Medium 3
Option 1
Options 2-4,7
Option 5A
Option 6
255.4
1,458.1
1,458.1
1,458.1
389.3
11,800.2
11,798.0
11,800.2
192.5
886.7
886.7
886.7
1,082.4
3,558.7
3,558.7
3,558.7
1,027.8
1,988.3
1,998.3
1,988.3
4-13
-------
Table 4.1-4 (Continued)
Animal
Type
Size Class
Regulatory
Option
Region
Central
Mid-
Atlantic
Midwest
Pacific
South
Dairy Medium CAFOs (cont.)
Medium 2
Medium 1
Option 1
Options 2-4,7
Option 5A
Option 6
Option 1
Options 2-4,7
Option 5A
Option 6
3,696.8
3,641.7
3,641.7
3,641.7
247.6
3,109.9
3,109.9
3,109.9
5,625.7
54,272.3
46,723.5
54,272.3
576.4
59,402.7
59,402.7
59,402.7
4,306.1
5,956.1
5,956.1
5,956.1
644.5
6,140.3
6,140.3
6,140.3
9,633.7
7,342.7
5,440.3
7,342.7
196.5
3,559.2
3,559.2
3,559.2
8,761.1
8,943.0
9,000.1
8,943.0
143.2
2,868.8
2,868.8
2,868.8
Heifer Large CAFOs
Large 1
Option 1
Options 2-4,7
Option 5A
Option 6
148.0
6,055.8
6,134.0
6,056.0
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
1,024.0
11,015.5
11,051.0
11,016.0
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Heifer Medium CAFOs
Medium 3
Medium 2
Medium 1
Option 1
Options 2-4,7
Option 5A
Option 6
Option 1
Options 2-4,7
Option 5A
Option 6
Option 1
Options 2-4,7
Option 5A
Option 6
8.4
113.6
111.4
113.6
20.8
188.1
188.1
188.1
8.0
50.1
50.1
50.1
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
6.6
61.0
58.4
61.0
16.2
111.8
111.8
111.8
122.6
579.6
579.6
579.6
104.5
104.5
54.9
104.5
192.5
192.5
45.9
192.5
89.5
89.5
90.0
89.5
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Swine - Grow-Finish Large CAFOs
Large 2
Large 1
Option 1
Options 2-4,7
Option 5
Option 6
Option 1
Options 2-4,7
Option 5
Option 6
7,552.1
32,326.6
16,367.6
32,326.6
619.5
3,723.7
1,296.1
3,723.7
11,455.8
333,279.4
172,493.4
333,279.4
2,072.5
93,864.4
52,803.4
93,864.4
7,752.8
50,809.3
17,701.3
40,779.0
2,902.5
27,885.4
9,950.6
27,885.4
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
4-14
-------
Table 4.1-4 (Continued)
Animal
Type
Size Class
Regulatory
Option
Region
Central
Mid-
Atlantic
Midwest
Pacific
South
Swine - Grow-Finish Medium CAFOs
Medium 3
Medium 2
Medium 1
Option 1
Options 2-4,7
Option 5
Option 6
Option 1
Options 2-4,7
Option 5
Option 6
Option 1
Options 2-4,7
Option 5
Option 6
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
55.4
2,939.5
1,837.3
2,939.5
19.4
1,294.1
882.6
1,294.1
24.0
1,600.0
1,090.1
1,600.0
163.6
1,723.6
688.2
1,723.6
124.2
1,539.8
720.7
1,539.8
153.8
1,906.6
892.7
1,906.6
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Swine - Farrow-to-Finish Large CAFOs
Large 2
Large 1
Option 1
Options 2-4,7
Option 5
Option 6
Option 1
Options 2-4,7
Option 5
Option 6
2,962.8
14,677.0
6,338.5
14,677.0
641.1
4,402.7
1,292.2
4,402.7
11,974.5
471,894.9
282,066.2
471,894.9
766.8
40,319.7
21,845.4
40,319.7
24,157.7
192,780.5
80,344.4
153,772.3
4,047.2
44,825.8
14,365.6
44,825.8
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Swine - Farrow-to-Finish Medium CAFOs
Medium 3
Medium 2
Medium 1
Option 1
Options 2-4,7
Option 5
Option 6
Option 1
Options 2-4,7
Option 5
Option 6
Option 1
Options 2-4,7
Option 5
Option 6
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
24.3
1,605.4
869.2
1,605.4
19.3
1,426.4
810.8
1,426.4
21.0
1,550.7
880.8
1,550.7
184.5
2,447.1
823.5
2,447.1
192.1
2,779.5
1,015.1
2,779.5
209.5
3,031.2
1,107.0
3,031.2
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
4-15
-------
Table 4.1-4 (Continued)
Animal
Type
Size Class
Regulatory
Option
Region
Central
Mid-
Atlantic
Midwest
Pacific
South
Broilers Large CAFOs
Large 2
Large 1
Option 1
Options 2-4,7
Option 5
Option 6
Option 1
Options 2-4,7
Option 5
Option 6
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
6,949.1
66,582.3
66,582.3
66,582.3
3,981.6
42,633.8
42,633.8
42,633.8
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
18,447.8
53,745.7
53,745.7
53,745.7
8,778.9
27,685.5
27,685.5
27,685.5
Broilers Medium CAFOs
Medium 3
Medium 2
Medium 1
Option 1
Options 2-4,7
Option 5
Option 6
Option 1
Options 2-4,7
Option 5
Option 6
Option 1
Options 2-4,7
Option 5
Option 6
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
433.5
5,426.9
5,426.9
5,426.9
316.1
3,956.4
3,956.4
3,956.4
169.0
2,306.1
2,306.1
2,306.1
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
948.3
3,342.8
3,342.8
3,342.8
620.6
2,187.7
2,187.7
2,187.7
293.0
1,103.8
1,103.8
1,103.8
Layers - Dry Large CAFOs
Large 2
Large 1
Option 1
Options 2-4,7
Option 5
Option 6
Option 1
Options 2-4,7
Option 5
Option 6
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
10,003.7
26,986.7
26,986.7
26,986.7
13,904.2
36,978.4
36,978.4
36,978.4
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
2,627.4
9,822.7
9,822.7
9,822.7
5,641.4
19,976.7
19,976.7
19,976.7
Layers - Dry Medium CAFOs
Medium 3
Option 1
Options 2-4,7
Option 5
Option 6
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
8.3
22.0
22.0
22.0
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
4.5
16.1
16.1
16.1
4-16
-------
Table 4.1-4 (Continued)
Animal
Type
Size Class
Regulatory
Option
Region
Central
Mid-
Atlantic
Midwest
Pacific
South
Layers - Dry Medium CAFOs (cont.)
Medium 2
Medium 1
Option 1
Options 2-4,7
Option 5
Option 6
Option 1
Options 2-4,7
Option 5
Option 6
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
29.1
77.4
77.4
77.4
40.3
91.7
91.7
91.7
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
17.5
62.0
62.0
62.0
32.1
95.1
95.1
95.1
Layers - Wet Large CAFOs
Large 1
Option 1
Options 2-4,7
Option 5
Option 6
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
11,644.5
38,951.5
15,828.7
38,951.5
Layers - Wet Medium CAFOs
Medium 3
Option 1
Options 2-4,7
Option 5
Option 6
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
34.5
103.3
37.9
103.3
Turkey Large CAFOs
Large 1
Option 1
Options 2-4,7
Option 5
Option 6
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
3,441.2
52,523.2
52,523.2
52,523.2
5,851.4
18,080.5
18,080.5
18,080.5
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Turkey Medium CAFOs
Medium 3
Medium 2
Medium 1
Option 1
Options 2-4,7
Option 5
Option 6
Option 1
Options 2-4,7
Option 5
Option 6
Option 1
Options 2-4,7
Option 5
Option 6
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
31.9
399.6
399.6
399.6
38.9
489.3
489.3
489.3
42.4
533.8
533.8
533.8
21.5
60.2
60.2
60.2
24.9
71.1
71.1
71.1
26.8
76.7
76.7
76.7
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A-Not Applicable.
4-17
-------
Table 4.1-5
Industry-Level Incremental PM Emissions above Option 1 from
Transportation of Manure Off Site by Regulatory Option (Ibs/yr)
Animal
Type
Size Class
Regulatory
Option
Region
Central
Mid-
Atlantic
Midwest
Pacific
South
Beef Large CAFOs
Large 2
Large 1
Option 1
Options 2-4,7
Option 5A
Option 6
Option 1
Options 2-4,7
Option 5A
Option 6
401.0
7,084.5
7,084.5
7,084.5
43.9
1,171.0
1,170.6
1,171.0
36.4
1,586.2
1,584.9
1,586.2
9.1
137.8
137.5
137.8
254.7
7,958.2
7,958.2
7,958.2
87.3
1,166.5
1,166.5
1,166.5
546.0
5,705.5
5,701.5
5,705.5
596.0
438.2
438.2
438.2
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Beef Medium CAFOs
Medium 3
Medium 2
Medium 1
Option 1
Options 2-4,7
Option 5A
Option 6
Option 1
Options 2-4,7
Option 5A
Option 6
Option 1
Options 2-4,7
Option 5A
Option 6
0.4
3.3
o o
5.5
o o
5.5
0.6
3.3
o o
5.5
o o
5.5
1.0
4.4
4.4
4.4
0.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
0.3
2.5
2.5
2.5
0.8
5.8
5.8
5.8
1.7
8.9
8.9
8.9
3.0
11.7
11.7
11.7
0.1
1.4
1.4
1.4
0.1
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.2
1.4
1.4
1.4
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.2
Dairy Large CAFOs
Large 1
Option 1
Options 2-4,7
Option 5A
Option 6
4,767.2
5,721.8
442.3
5,721.8
1,400.0
7,677.3
739.4
7,677.3
141.9
5,614.0
141.7
5,614.0
44,821.3
94,837.3
1,804.9
94,837.3
1,901.2
4,814.1
311.1
4,814.1
Dairy Medium CAFOs
Medium 3
Option 1
Options 2-4,7
Option 5A
Option 6
9.2
48.9
48.9
48.9
13.3
381.8
381.8
381.8
7.0
30.5
30.5
30.5
35.6
117.1
117.1
117.1
32.5
63.7
64.0
63.7
4-18
-------
Table 4.1-5 (Continued)
Animal
Type
Size Class
Regulatory
Option
Region
Central
Mid-
Atlantic
Midwest
Pacific
South
Dairy Medium CAFOs (cont.)
Medium 2
Medium 1
Option 1
Options 2-4,7
Option 5A
Option 6
Option 1
Options 2-4,7
Option 5A
Option 6
117.2
118.6
118.6
118.6
9.0
103.3
103.3
103.3
180.4
1,736.9
1,502.5
1,736.9
20.9
1,913.4
1,913.4
1,913.4
140.2
200.6
200.6
200.6
23.3
209.3
209.3
209.3
301.0
232.8
173.7
232.8
7.1
116.9
116.9
116.9
273.3
280.8
282.6
280.8
5.2
93.4
93.4
93.4
Heifer Large CAFOs
Large 1
Option 1
Options 2-4,7
Option 5A
Option 6
5.0
212.4
215.0
212.4
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
37.0
370.0
370.0
370.0
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Heifer Medium CAFOs
Medium 3
Medium 2
Medium 1
Option 1
Options 2-4,7
Option 5A
Option 6
Option 1
Options 2-4,7
Option 5A
Option 6
Option 1
Options 2-4,7
Option 5A
Option 6
0.3
4.0
3.9
4.0
0.8
6.6
6.6
6.6
0.3
1.8
1.8
1.8
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
0.2
2.1
2.0
2.1
0.6
3.9
3.9
3.9
4.4
20.0
20.0
20.0
3.5
3.5
1.8
3.5
6.4
6.4
1.5
6.4
2.9
2.9
2.9
2.9
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Swine - Grow-Finish Large CAFOs
Large 2
Large 1
Option 1
Options 2-4,7
Option 5
Option 6
Option 1
Options 2-4,7
Option 5
Option 6
234.5
1,003.8
508.2
1,003.8
19.2
115.6
40.2
115.6
355.7
10,348.6
5,356.0
10,348.6
64.4
2,914.6
1,639.6
2,914.6
240.7
1,577.7
549.6
1,266.2
90.1
865.9
309.0
865.9
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
4-19
-------
Table 4.1-5 (Continued)
Animal
Type
Size Class
Regulatory
Option
Region
Central
Mid-
Atlantic
Midwest
Pacific
South
Swine - Grow-Finish Medium CAFOs
Medium 3
Medium 2
Medium 1
Option 1
Options 2-4,7
Option 5
Option 6
Option 1
Options 2-4,7
Option 5
Option 6
Option 1
Options 2-4,7
Option 5
Option 6
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
1.7
91.3
57.0
91.3
0.6
40.2
27.4
40.2
0.7
49.7
33.8
49.7
5.1
53.5
21.4
53.5
3.9
47.8
22.4
47.8
4.8
59.2
27.7
59.2
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Swine - Farrow-to-Finish Large CAFOs
Large 2
Large 1
Option 1
Options 2-4,7
Option 5
Option 6
Option 1
Options 2-4,7
Option 5
Option 6
92.0
455.7
196.8
455.7
19.9
136.7
40.1
136.7
371.8
14,652.7
8,758.4
14,652.7
23.8
1,252.0
678.3
1,252.0
750.1
5,986.0
2,494.8
4,774.7
125.7
1,391.9
446.1
1,391.9
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Swine - Farrow-to-Finish Medium CAFOs
Medium 3
Medium 2
Medium 1
Option 1
Options 2-4,7
Option 5
Option 6
Option 1
Options 2-4,7
Option 5
Option 6
Option 1
Options 2-4,7
Option 5
Option 6
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
0.8
49.8
27.0
49.8
0.6
44.3
25.2
44.3
0.7
48.2
27.4
48.2
5.7
76.0
25.6
76.0
6.0
86.3
31.5
86.3
6.5
94.1
34.4
94.1
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
4-20
-------
Table 4.1-5 (Continued)
Animal
Type
Size Class
Regulatory
Option
Region
Central
Mid-
Atlantic
Midwest
Pacific
South
Broilers Large CAFOs
Large 2
Large 1
Option 1
Options 2-4,7
Option 5
Option 6
Option 1
Options 2-4,7
Option 5
Option 6
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
251.6
2,410.7
2,410.7
2,410.7
144.2
1,543.6
1,543.6
1,543.6
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
667.9
1,945.9
1,945.9
1,945.9
317.9
1,002.4
1,002.4
1,002.4
Broilers Medium CAFOs
Medium 3
Medium 2
Medium 1
Option 1
Options 2-4,7
Option 5
Option 6
Option 1
Options 2-4,7
Option 5
Option 6
Option 1
Options 2-4,7
Option 5
Option 6
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
15.7
196.5
196.5
196.5
11.4
143.2
143.2
143.2
6.1
83.5
83.5
83.5
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
34.3
121.0
121.0
121.0
22.5
79.2
79.2
79.2
10.6
40.0
40.0
40.0
Layers - Dry Large CAFOs
Large 2
Large 1
Option 1
Options 2-4,7
Option 5
Option 6
Option 1
Options 2-4,7
Option 5
Option 6
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
362.2
977.1
977.1
977.1
503.4
1,338.8
1,338.8
1,338.8
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
95.1
355.6
355.6
355.6
204.3
723.3
723.3
723.3
Layers - Dry Medium CAFOs
Medium 3
Option 1
Options 2-4,7
Option 5
Option 6
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
0.3
0.8
0.8
0.8
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
0.2
0.6
0.6
0.6
4-21
-------
Table 4.1-5 (Continued)
Animal
Type
Size Class
Regulatory
Option
Region
Central
Mid-
Atlantic
Midwest
Pacific
South
Layers - Dry Medium CAFOs (cont.)
Medium 2
Medium 1
Option 1
Options 2-4,7
Option 5
Option 6
Option 1
Options 2-4,7
Option 5
Option 6
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
1.1
2.8
2.8
2.8
1.5
3.3
3.3
3.3
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
0.6
2.2
2.2
2.2
1.2
3.4
3.4
3.4
Layers - Wet Large CAFOs
Large 1
Option 1
Options 2-4,7
Option 5
Option 6
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
361.6
1,209.5
491.5
1,209.5
Layers - Wet Medium CAFOs
Medium 3
Option 1
Options 2-4,7
Option 5
Option 6
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
1.1
3.2
1.2
3.2
Turkey Large CAFOs
Large 1
Option 1
Options 2-4,7
Option 5
Option 6
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
124.6
1,901.7
1,901.7
1,901.7
211.9
654.6
654.6
654.6
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Turkey Medium CAFOs
Medium 3
Medium 2
Medium 1
Option 1
Options 2-4,7
Option 5
Option 6
Option 1
Options 2-4,7
Option 5
Option 6
Option 1
Options 2-4,7
Option 5
Option 6
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
1.2
14.5
14.5
14.5
1.4
17.7
17.7
17.7
1.5
19.3
19.3
19.3
0.8
2.2
2.2
2.2
0.9
2.6
2.6
2.6
1.0
2.8
2.8
2.8
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A-Not Applicable.
4-22
-------
Table 4.1-6
Industry-Level Incremental CO Emissions above Option 1 from
Transportation of Manure Off Site by Regulatory Option (Ibs/yr)
Animal
Type
Size Class
Regulatory
Option
Region
Central
Mid-
Atlantic
Midwest
Pacific
South
Beef Large CAFOs
Large 2
Large 1
Option 1
Options 2-4,7
Option 5A
Option 6
Option 1
Options 2-4,7
Option 5A
Option 6
2,746.9
54,112.9
54,112.9
54,112.9
300.7
8,381.0
8,381.2
8,381.0
321.2
14,165.5
14,156.5
14,165.5
80.8
1,176.2
1,174.2
1,176.2
1,744.3
63,225.0
63,225.0
63,225.0
738.2
8,633.3
8,633.3
8,633.3
3,740.0
49,932.6
49,904.9
49,932.6
5,298.9
3,510.1
3,510.1
3,510.1
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Beef Medium CAFOs
Medium 3
Medium 2
Medium 1
Option 1
Options 2-4,7
Option 5A
Option 6
Option 1
Options 2-4,7
Option 5A
Option 6
Option 1
Options 2-4,7
Option 5A
Option 6
2.6
23.9
23.9
23.9
3.9
24.0
24.0
24.0
7.1
32.0
32.0
32.0
0.1
8.0
8.0
8.0
0.3
16.3
16.3
16.3
2.5
21.1
21.1
21.1
5.6
43.0
43.0
43.0
11.4
65.7
65.7
65.7
20.8
86.0
86.0
86.0
0.6
11.3
11.3
11.3
0.6
8.3
8.3
8.3
1.8
11.1
11.1
11.1
0.0
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.1
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.6
1.4
1.4
1.4
Dairy Large CAFOs
Large 1
Option 1
Options 2-4,7
Option 5A
Option 6
43,008.3
50,730.4
3,098.5
50,730.4
12,615.2
68,740.9
5,596.5
68,740.9
1,222.1
4,781.1
1,006.3
4,781.1
406,787.8
860,760.9
13,165.7
860,760.9
17,284.5
43,635.4
2,609.8
43,635.4
Dairy Medium CAFOs
Medium 3
Option 1
Options 2-4,7
Option 5A
Option 6
63.3
388.4
388.4
388.4
101.9
3,240.8
3,240.3
3,240.8
47.7
230.8
230.8
230.8
293.0
964.1
964.1
964.1
287.8
550.2
553.1
550.2
4-23
-------
Table 4.1-6 (Continued)
Animal
Type
Size Class
Regulatory
Option
Region
Central
Mid-
Atlantic
Midwest
Pacific
South
Dairy Medium CAFOs (cont.)
Medium 2
Medium 1
Option 1
Options 2-4,7
Option 5A
Option 6
Option 1
Options 2-4,7
Option 5A
Option 6
1,032.0
995.0
995.0
995.0
61.4
835.4
835.4
835.4
1,556.5
15,038.4
12,897.2
15,038.4
142.9
16,375.1
16,375.1
16,375.1
1,176.6
1,581.2
1,581.2
1,581.2
159.8
1,613.1
1,613.1
1,613.1
2,719.9
2,050.2
1,510.5
2,050.2
48.7
965.6
965.6
965.6
2,476.8
2,515.4
2,531.6
2,515.4
35.5
783.8
783.8
783.8
Heifer Large CAFOs
Large 1
Option 1
Options 2-4,7
Option 5A
Option 6
37.0
1,549.6
1,569.0
1,549.6
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
254.0
2,931.2
2,931.0
2,931.2
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Heifer Medium CAFOs
Medium 3
Medium 2
Medium 1
Option 1
Options 2-4,7
Option 5A
Option 6
Option 1
Options 2-4,7
Option 5A
Option 6
Option 1
Options 2-4,7
Option 5A
Option 6
2.1
29.2
28.7
29.2
5.1
48.2
48.2
48.2
2.0
12.8
12.8
12.8
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
1.6
15.9
15.2
15.9
4.0
29.1
29.1
29.1
30.4
150.3
150.3
150.3
28.0
28.0
14.9
28.0
51.8
51.8
12.8
51.8
24.2
24.2
24.0
24.2
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Swine - Grow-Finish Large CAFOs
Large 2
Large 1
Option 1
Options 2-4,7
Option 5
Option 6
Option 1
Options 2-4,7
Option 5
Option 6
2,142.5
9,170.9
4,643.4
9,170.9
175.8
1,056.4
367.7
1,056.4
3,250.0
94,549.9
48,935.6
94,549.9
588.0
26,628.9
14,980.1
26,628.9
2,199.4
14,414.4
5,021.8
11,568.8
823.4
7,911.0
2,823.0
7,911.0
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
4-24
-------
Table 4.1-6 (Continued)
Animal
Type
Size Class
Regulatory
Option
Region
Central
Mid-
Atlantic
Midwest
Pacific
South
Swine - Grow-Finish Medium CAFOs
Medium 3
Medium 2
Medium 1
Option 1
Options 2-4,7
Option 5
Option 6
Option 1
Options 2-4,7
Option 5
Option 6
Option 1
Options 2-4,7
Option 5
Option 6
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
15.7
833.9
521.2
833.9
5.5
367.1
250.4
367.1
6.8
453.9
309.3
453.9
46.4
489.0
195.2
489.0
35.2
436.8
204.5
436.8
43.6
540.9
253.2
540.9
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Swine - Farrow-to-Finish Large CAFOs
Large 2
Large 1
Option 1
Options 2-4,7
Option 5
Option 6
Option 1
Options 2-4,7
Option 5
Option 6
840.5
4,163.8
1,798.2
4,163.8
175.8
1,249.0
366.6
1,249.0
3,397.1
133,874.5
80,021.0
133,874.5
588.0
11,438.5
6,197.4
11,438.5
6,853.4
54,691.0
22,793.3
43,624.5
823.4
12,716.9
4,075.5
12,716.9
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Swine - Farrow-to-Finish Medium CAFOs
Medium 3
Medium 2
Medium 1
Option 1
Options 2-4,7
Option 5
Option 6
Option 1
Options 2-4,7
Option 5
Option 6
Option 1
Options 2-4,7
Option 5
Option 6
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
6.9
455.4
246.6
455.4
5.5
404.7
230.0
404.7
6.0
439.9
249.9
439.9
52.3
694.2
233.6
694.2
54.5
788.5
288.0
788.5
59.4
860.0
314.1
860.0
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
4-25
-------
Table 4.1-6 (Continued)
Animal
Type
Size Class
Regulatory
Option
Region
Central
Mid-
Atlantic
Midwest
Pacific
South
Broilers Large CAFOs
Large 2
Large 1
Option 1
Options 2-4,7
Option 5
Option 6
Option 1
Options 2-4,7
Option 5
Option 6
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
1,723.3
16,512.0
16,512.0
16,512.0
987.4
10,572.9
10,572.9
10,572.9
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
4,574.9
13,328.6
13,328.6
13,328.6
2,177.1
6,865.8
6,865.8
6,865.8
Broilers Medium CAFOs
Medium 3
Medium 2
Medium 1
Option 1
Options 2-4,7
Option 5
Option 6
Option 1
Options 2-4,7
Option 5
Option 6
Option 1
Options 2-4,7
Option 5
Option 6
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
107.5
1,345.8
1,345.8
1,345.8
78.4
981.2
981.2
981.2
41.9
571.9
571.9
571.9
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
235.2
829.0
829.0
829.0
153.9
542.5
542.5
542.5
72.7
273.7
273.7
273.7
Layers - Dry Large CAFOs
Large 2
Large 1
Option 1
Options 2-4,7
Option 5
Option 6
Option 1
Options 2-4,7
Option 5
Option 6
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
2,480.8
6,692.5
6,692.5
6,692.5
3,448.2
9,170.4
9,170.4
9,170.4
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
651.6
2,436.0
2,436.0
2,436.0
1,399.0
4,954.1
4,954.1
4,954.1
Layers - Dry Medium CAFOs
Medium 3
Option 1
Options 2-4,7
Option 5
Option 6
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
2.1
5.5
5.5
5.5
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
1.1
4.0
4.0
4.0
4-26
-------
Table 4.1-6 (Continued)
Animal
Type
Size Class
Regulatory
Option
Region
Central
Mid-
Atlantic
Midwest
Pacific
South
Layers - Dry Medium CAFOs (cont.)
Medium 2
Medium 1
Option 1
Options 2-4,7
Option 5
Option 6
Option 1
Options 2-4,7
Option 5
Option 6
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
7.2
19.2
19.2
19.2
10.0
22.7
22.7
22.7
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
4.3
15.4
15.4
15.4
8.0
23.6
23.6
23.6
Layers - Wet Large CAFOs
Large 1
Option 1
Option 2
Options 2-4,7
Option 6
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
3,303.5
11,050.4
4,490.5
11,050.4
Layers - Wet Medium CAFOs
Medium 3
Option 1
Options 2-4,7
Option 5
Option 6
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
9.8
29.3
10.7
29.3
Turkey Large CAFOs
Large 1
Option 1
Options 2-4,7
Option 5
Option 6
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
853.4
13,025.4
13,025.4
13,025.4
1,451.1
4,483.9
4,483.9
4,483.9
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Turkey Medium CAFOs
Medium 3
Medium 2
Medium 1
Option 1
Options 2-4,7
Option 5
Option 6
Option 1
Options 2-4,7
Option 5
Option 6
Option 1
Options 2-4,7
Option 5
Option 6
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
7.9
99.1
99.1
99.1
9.6
121.3
121.3
121.3
10.5
132.4
132.4
132.4
5.3
14.9
14.9
14.9
6.2
17.6
17.6
17.6
6.7
19.0
19.0
19.0
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A - Not Applicable.
4-27
-------
waste must be hauled off site compared to Option 1. Dairy and swine emissions are lower when
anaerobic digesters are used in Option 6. Composting (Option 5 A for beef and dairy operations)
has a limited impact on the emissions from transporting waste off site.
4.2 On-Site Composting Activities
Farm equipment used for on-site composting activities also affects the generation
of air emissions. Option 5 A for beef and dairy is based on all operations composting their waste;
therefore, criteria air emissions from on-site composting of manure are shown only for beef and
dairy Option 5 A. Appendix F describes in detail the data and methodology used to calculate
emissions for farm equipment used for on-site composting activities. Composting waste also
reduces transportation air emissions if the volume or weight of material composted is reduced.
Reductions in transportation emissions associated with the reduced material volume/weight are
reflected in the transportation emissions described in Section 4.1.
4.2.1 Emissions Methodology
Criteria air emission estimates from composting are determined using the
following assumptions (NRAES, 1992):
• Unit weight of manure is 62 Ib/cf;
• All operations use windrow composting;
• Windrow height is 4.2 ft;
• Windrow width is 10 ft;
• Windrows are turned using a tractor attachment;
• Tractors that are used to turn manure travel at 1 mph;
• Tractors that are used to turn manure have 100 brake-horsepower (bhp)
engines;
• Tractors turn the manure once a week (52 turns/year);
4-28
-------
A maximum of two months of waste is collected in the compost pile; and
The compost windrow is turned using a rotary drum turner (the turner is a
power take-off model that is propelled by a tractor).
4.2.2 Calculation of Emissions and Results
The amount of waste composted is based on the amount of excreted semi-solid
waste. For this analysis, it is assumed that a maximum of two months of waste is collected on
the compost pile. The annual amount of composted waste (including bedding) is divided by six
to determine the weight composted in a two-month period, as shown in Equation 4-6. The cost
model computes the annual amount of composted waste (U.S. EPA, 2002a).
,, . ^ . , „, . ,„ - Annual Composted Waste (Ib)
Maximum Composted Waste (Ib) = ^-^ [4.6]
6
The compost volume is calculated using the unit weight of composted waste, as shown in
Equation 4-7.
,, . ^ . , ,, , , f. Maximum Composted Waste (Ib)
Maximum Composted Volume (cf) = ^^ [4.71
Unit Weight (Ib/cf) L J
The cross-sectional area of the windrow is calculated using Equation 4-8. The windrow height
and width are provided above.
Windrow Cross-Sectional Area (sf) = (2/3) x Windrow Height (ft) x Windrow Width (ft) [4-8]
Using the cross-sectional area, the length of the windrow is calculated as shown in Equation 4-9.
„,. , T ., , ., , Maximum Composted Volume (cf) ,~ . ,
Windrow Length (miles) = — x 52 turns/yr [4.91
(Windrow Cross-Sectional Area (sf) x 5,280 ft/mile) L J
The annual miles traveled during composting are calculated in the cost model
(U.S. EPA, 2002a) and are presented in Table 4.2-1.
4-29
-------
Table 4.2-1
Industry-Level Composting Miles Traveled Under Option 5A
Animal Type
Beef
Heifer
Dairy
Compost Miles
91,172
1,867
2,125
The annual criteria air emissions from composting operations are determined using the emissions
factors shown in Table 4.1-1, the miles traveled along the length of the windrow, and Equation
4-10.
„ ,, . . ~ . . ... , , Windrow Length (miles) x Emission Factor (gm/mile)
Pollutant Emissions (tons/yr) = 2—- '- ^ L
454(lb/gm) x 2000(ton/lb)
[4-10]
Table 4.2-2 summarizes the results of criteria air pollutant emissions resulting
from composting for each model farm in each region for Option 5A. The cost model assumes
that composting takes place on site before transportation or land application. On-site emissions
of criteria air pollutants due to composting activities increase under Option 5 A for all beef
feedlots, heifer operations, and dairies.
4-30
-------
Table 4.2-2
Compost Pollutant Emissions for Model Farms
Under Option 5A (Ibs/yr)
Animal
Type
Size Class
Criteria
Pollutant
Region
Central
Mid-
Atlantic
Midwest
Pacific
South
Beef Large CAFOs
Large 2
Large 1
VOCs
NOx
CO
PM
VOCs
NOx
CO
PM
59.49
1,303.90
323.36
47.21
13.47
295.19
73.21
10.69
1.10
24.17
5.99
0.87
0.21
4.58
1.13
0.17
106.85
2,341.90
580.78
84.79
24.24
531.18
131.73
19.23
6.36
139.41
34.57
5.05
1.51
33.19
8.23
1.20
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Beef Medium CAFOs
Medium 3
Medium 2
Medium 1
VOCs
NOx
CO
PM
VOCs
NOx
CO
PM
VOCs
NOx
CO
PM
0.17
4.00
0.91
0.13
0.27
5.83
1.45
0.21
0.33
7.15
1.77
0.26
0.01
0.21
0.05
0.01
0.03
0.66
0.16
0.02
0.04
0.80
0.20
0.03
0.46
10.14
2.52
0.37
1.01
22.16
5.50
0.80
1.24
27.20
6.75
0.98
0.02
0.53
0.13
0.02
0.03
0.58
0.14
0.02
0.03
0.74
0.18
0.03
0.00
0.05
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.08
0.02
0.00
0.00
0.09
0.02
0.00
Dairy Large CAFOs
Large 1
VOCs
NOx
CO
PM
1.55
34.02
8.44
1.23
0.22
4.85
1.20
0.18
0.33
7.28
1.81
0.26
1.13
24.68
6.12
0.89
0.07
1.51
0.38
0.05
Dairy Medium CAFOs
Medium 3
VOCs
NOx
CO
PM
0.04
0.90
0.22
0.03
0.04
0.81
0.20
0.03
0.04
0.84
0.21
0.03
0.02
0.41
0.10
0.01
0.01
0.12
0.03
0.00
4-31
-------
Table 4.2-2 (Continued)
Animal
Type
Size Class
Criteria
Pollutant
Region
Central
Mid-
Atlantic
Midwest
Pacific
South
Dairy Medium CAFOs (cont.)
Medium 2
Medium 1
VOCs
NOx
CO
PM
VOCs
NOx
CO
PM
0.06
1.22
0.30
0.04
0.09
1.98
0.49
0.07
0.12
2.69
0.67
0.10
0.20
4.39
1.09
0.16
0.18
3.93
0.97
0.14
0.29
6.41
1.59
0.23
0.01
0.28
0.07
0.01
0.02
0.46
0.11
0.02
0.01
0.20
0.05
0.01
0.02
0.34
0.08
0.01
Heifer Large CAFOs
Large 1
VOCs
NOx
CO
PM
1.80
40.17
9.96
1.45
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
0.89
19.41
4.81
0.70
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Heifer Medium CAFOs
Medium 3
Medium 2
Medium 1
VOCs
NOx
CO
PM
VOCs
NOx
CO
PM
VOCs
NOx
CO
PM
0.13
2.84
0.71
0.10
0.34
7.55
1.87
0.27
0.08
1.86
0.46
0.07
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
0.10
2.21
0.55
0.08
0.26
5.79
1.44
0.21
1.28
28.04
6.95
1.02
0.03
0.63
0.02
0.16
0.07
1.63
0.06
0.40
0.03
0.67
0.02
0.17
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A - Not Applicable.
4-32
-------
s.o ENERGY IMPACTS
Certain regulatory options evaluated for animal feeding operations entail the use
of different waste management systems and land application practices that may increase or
decrease energy usage. Energy impacts related to land application are evaluated for animal
feeding operations under baseline conditions and under the seven regulatory options considered
by EPA. Energy impacts related to the use of anaerobic digesters are evaluated for all Large
dairies and swine operations under Option 6.
5.1 Land Application
Applying animal waste to cropland requires energy in the form of electricity to
operate the irrigation system. The regulatory options assume all beef feedlots, heifer operations,
and dairies that have cropland apply their manure and wastewater using agronomic application
rates; therefore, the manure application rates are calculated to be no greater than the nutrient
uptake requirements for the crops grown in the fields on which the manure is applied. In many
instances, facilities have to limit the amount of manure applied to the land, which may decrease
on-site energy usage; however, an equivalent amount of energy is likely expended elsewhere to
apply the manure and wastewater off site. EPA did not estimate energy impacts that occur off
site.
The regulatory options may result in increased energy use for beef feedlots, heifer
operations, dairies, and veal operations that need to capture runoff or other wastewater, divert it
to a waste management system, and use the wastewater for irrigation. The regulatory options
implementing a no-discharge policy would force these operations to collect and land apply their
liquid waste using pivot irrigation systems or traveling guns, depending on the amount of acreage
available for application. As a result of these application systems, the energy requirements of
these operations would increase. Swine and poultry operations are not expected to have energy
impacts from land application because it is assumed that all operations already land apply their
waste.
5-1
-------
5.1.1
Data Inputs
The estimation of the energy use associated with land application activities uses
the following data inputs:
Required horsepower per irrigated acre for center pivots and traveling
guns; and
Required flow rate per irrigated acre for traveling guns.
Table 5.1-1 presents the horsepower required to irrigate a specific number of acres
using a center pivot system. These data were obtained from the Zimmatic System Configuration
Economic Comparison Guide (Zimmatic, 2000) and are used in this analysis to establish a
relationship between the number of acres irrigated and the electrical and diesel pump energy
required.
Table 5.1-1
Required Horsepower for Center Pivots
Irrigated Acres
61
122
488
Required Horsepower
41
78
164
Source: Zimmatic, 2000.
Table 5.1-2 presents flow rates, in gallons per minute (gpm), required to irrigate a
specific number of acres using a traveling gun system. These data were obtained from the Kifco
"B" Series Performance Guide (Kifco, 2001). To use this information to relate irrigated acreage
to horsepower requirements for traveling gun systems, it is necessary to know the horsepower
required to achieve a given flow rate. Data relating horsepower and flow rates for traveling guns
were obtained from Caprari Pumps Performance Data fCaprari, 2002) and are presented in
Table 5.1-3.
5-2
-------
Table 5.1-2
Required Flow Rate for Traveling Guns
Irrigated Acres
66
87
110
126
143
Required Flow Rate (GPM)
17
23
29
33
37
Source: Kifco, 2001.
Table 5.1-3
Required Horsepower for Traveling Guns
Flow Rate (GPM)
50
60
70
80
90
100
150
Required Horsepower
13
14
15
16
17
17
21
Source: Caprari, 2002.
5.1.2
Energy Usage Methodology
To calculate the energy required for land application at a model farm, it is
necessary to know the number of acres available for land application and the horsepower
required to irrigate those acres.
In estimating the land required for irrigation, only the liquid portion of the manure
is used. As described in the cost methodology report (U.S. EPA, 2002a), the following
assumptions are made:
5-3
-------
All Large beef, heifer, and dairy CAFOs currently have sufficient land
application/irrigation practices in place;
Fifty percent of Medium beef and heifer CAFOs have land
application/irrigation practices in place; and
Ninety percent of Medium dairy CAFOs have land application/irrigation
practices in place.
Acres available for liquid land application for farms classified as Category 1 and Category 2 are
presented in the cost model methodology report (U.S. EPA, 2002a) and are used for the NWQI
analysis for each model farm.
The amount of horsepower required for liquid land application at a model farm is
based on the number of acres available for land application as calculated by the cost model.
Equation 5-1 is used to calculate the horsepower required to irrigate the acres available for
application at a model farm using a center pivot irrigation system, based on the data provided in
Table 5.1-1:
Required Horsepower (HP) = (0.2695 x Irrigated Acres) + 34.047 [5-1]
For liquid land application with a traveling gun irrigation system, the flow rate
needed to irrigate the available acres is calculated using Equation 5-2, based on the data provided
in Table 5.1-2.
Required Flow Rate (GPM) = (3.8465 x Irrigated Acres) - 0.5332 [5-2]
The required horsepower is calculated using Equation 5-3, based on the data
provided in Table 5.1-3.
Required Horsepower (HP) = (0.0783 x Flow Rate) + 9.4348 [5-3]
Appendix G provides the derivation of these three equations.
5-4
-------
Energy use from land application activities is approximated based on the
assumption that facilities with more than 30 acres available for liquid land application use center
pivot irrigation and facilities with less than 30 acres available use traveling gun irrigation. In
addition, it is assumed that irrigation systems are operated 1,000 hours per year.
The energy use from liquid land application at a model farm is then calculated
from the required horsepower using Equation 5-4.
Energy Use per Model Farm (kW-hr/yr) =
Required Horsepower x 1,000 hrs/yr x 0.7457 kW-hr/HP-hr x Frequency Factor [5-4]
where:
Required Horsepower = The horsepower required to irrigate the acres
available for land application at a model
farm calculated in Equations 5-1 and 5-3
1,000 hrs/yr = The number of hours an irrigated system is
operated per year
0.7457 kW-hr/HP-hr = The conversion factor from horsepower per
hour to kilowatts per hour
Frequency Factor = Percentage of operations that do not
currently apply liquid manure or runoff for
irrigation.
5.1.3 Industry-Level Results
Table 5.1-4 presents the incremental electricity usage from baseline after
implementation of the regulatory options at the industry level for center pivot and traveling gun
irrigation systems. The change from the baseline scenario to each option scenario is directly
related to the frequency factor of center pivot or traveling gun irrigation. In other words, if all of
the facilities in a particular size group currently have a center pivot or traveling gun in place, the
incremental change in electricity usage is zero. There is no change between baseline and Option
1 for Large CAFOs because no additional liquid application is expected; however, Medium
CAFOs increase electrical use between baseline and Option 1 because some operations are
expected to apply runoff that is not collected under baseline. The change in electricity usage is
5-5
-------
Table 5.1-4
Incremental Industry-Level Electrical Usage for Center Pivot or Traveling
Gun Irrigation by Regulatory Option (MW-hr/yr)
Animal
Type
Size Class
Regulatory
Option
Region
Central
Mid-
Atlantic
Midwest
Pacific
South
Beef Large CAFOs
Large 2
Large 1
Option 1
Options 2-4, 7
Option 5A
Option 6
Option 1
Options 2-4, 7
Option 5A
Option 6
0
5,153
5,133
5,153
0
5,428
5,428
5,428
0
226
269
226
0
76
76
76
0
12,230
12,230
12,230
0
9,516
9,516
9,516
0
1,945
1,945
1,945
0
826
826
826
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Beef Medium CAFOs
Medium 3
Medium 2
Medium 1
Option 1
Options 2-4, 7
Option 5A
Option 6
Option 1
Options 2-4, 7
Option 5A
Option 6
Option 1
Options 2-4, 7
Option 5A
Option 6
26.9
38.7
38.7
38.7
37.1
48.2
48.2
48.2
63.7
77.6
77.6
77.6
6.3
7.9
7.9
7.9
7.6
20.4
20.5
20.4
11.7
33.7
33.8
33.7
85.3
259.1
259.1
259.1
160.3
227.8
227.8
227.8
274.6
357.4
357.4
357.4
5.5
22.2
22.2
22.2
5.0
20.2
20.2
20.2
8.6
35.2
35.2
35.2
1.8
1.9
1.9
1.9
0.9
2.2
2.2
2.2
1.4
1.6
1.6
1.6
Dairy Large CAFOs
Large 1
Option 1
Options 2-4, 7
Option 5A
Option 6
0
3,070
3,070
3,070
0
1,126
1,126
1,126
0
964
964
964
0
9,513
9,513
9,513
0
243
243
243
5-6
-------
Table 5.1-4 (Continued)
Animal
Type
Size Class
Regulatory
Option
Region
Central
Mid-
Atlantic
Midwest
Pacific
South
Dairy Medium CAFOs
Medium 3
Medium 2
Medium 1
Option 1
Options 2-4, 7
Option 5A
Option 6
Option 1
Options 2-4, 7
Option 5A
Option 6
Option 1
Options 2-4, 7
Option 5A
Option 6
9
23
23
23
17
38
38
38
45
87
87
87
28
382
387
382
119
1,640
1,658
1,640
299
875
909
875
15
52
52
52
92
290
290
290
242
613
613
613
11
46
46
46
10
35
35
35
27
72
72
72
6
10
10
10
14
20
20
20
36
46
46
46
Heifer Large CAFOs
Large 1
Option 1
Options 2-4, 7
Option 5A
Option 6
0
1,726
1,726
1,726
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
0
879
879
879
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Heifer Medium CAFOs
Medium 3
Medium 2
Medium 1
Option 1
Options 2-4, 7
Option 5A
Option 6
Option 1
Options 2-4, 7
Option 5A
Option 6
Option 1
Options 2-4, 7
Option 5A
Option 6
38
56
56
56
88
116
116
116
32
39
39
39
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
39
118
118
118
87
263
263
263
598
829
829
829
14
56
56
56
30
121
121
121
17
71
71
71
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
5-7
-------
greatest under Options 2 through 7, because some facilities apply manure waste using lower
phosphorus-basis application rates; therefore, they apply their liquid manure over more acres.
5.2 Transportation
Transporting manure off site and composting manure on site requires using
equipment such as trucks and tractors. The fuel consumption resulting from using these vehicles
contributes to the energy impacts associated with land application activities.
5.2.1 Data Inputs
The estimation of fuel consumption by transportation vehicles uses the following
data inputs:
Number of miles traveled per year; and
Vehicle fuel efficiency.
The cost model calculates the annual number of miles traveled to transport
manure off site and perform composting activities on site for each model farm (U.S. EPA,
2002a), presented in Tables 4.1-2 and 4.2-1 of this report. The number of miles traveled depends
on whether the model farm is a Category 2 or Category 3 facility, whether the facility purchases
trucks or uses a contract hauler, the amount of solid waste and liquid waste transported, and
whether nitrogen-based or phosphorous-based application is used. As described in Section 4.0, it
is assumed that compost windrows are turned once a week by a tractor for a total of 52 turns per
year (NRAES, 1992). This analysis also assumed that the farm vehicles used to transport manure
and turn compost piles have an average fuel efficiency of six miles per gallon (mpg) (U.S. EPA,
2002c).
5-8
-------
5.2.2 Energy Usage Methodology
The fuel consumption at a model farm resulting from transporting waste off site
and composting of manure on site is calculated as follows:
Fuel Consumption (gal/yr) = Miles Traveled (miles/yr) x 6 mpg [5-5]
where:
Miles Traveled (miles/yr) = The number of miles traveled per year to
transport manure off site and to perform
composting activities, calculated by the cost
model
6 mpg = Average fuel efficiency of vehicles used to
transport manure (miles per gallon).
5.2.3 Industry-Level Results
Table 5.2-1 presents the industry-level incremental fuel consumption from
baseline after implementation of the regulatory options for each type of operation.
5.3 Anaerobic Digesters with Methane Recovery
Option 6 includes the use of anaerobic digesters with energy recovery to manage
animal waste for Large dairies and swine operations. Digesters require a continuous input of
energy to operate the holding tank mixer and an engine to convert captured methane into energy.
5.3.1 Data Inputs
The energy required to continuously operate these devices and the amount of
energy generated by the system have been determined from the FarmWare model, which is used
in the cost model. Appendix H provides detailed data inputs and FarmWare model outputs used
to calculate the energy impacts from anaerobic digester methane recovery.
5-9
-------
Table 5.2-1
Industry-Level Fuel Usage for On-Site and Off-Site Transportation and
Composting Activities by Regulatory Option
Animal Type
Size Category
Regulatory Option
Miles Traveled
Gallons of Fuel Used
Beef Large CAFOs
Large 2
Large 1
Option 1
Options 2-4, 7
Option 5A
Option 6
Option 1
Options 2-4, 7
Option 5A
Option 6
655,886
11,831,760
11,901,983
11,831,760
412,528
1,851,758
1,870,820
1,870,820
109,314
1,971,960
1,983,664
1,971,960
109,314
308,626
311,803
311,803
Beef Medium CAFOs
Medium 3
Medium 2
Medium 1
Option 1
Options 2-4, 7
Option 5A
Option 6
Option 1
Options 2-4, 7
Option 5A
Option 6
Option 1
Options 2-4, 7
Option 5A
Option 6
700
6,125
6,405
6,125
1,258
8,107
8,669
8,107
2,484
10,702
11,392
10,702
117
1,021
1,068
1,021
210
1,351
1,445
1,351
414
1,784
1,899
1,784
Dairy Large CAFOs
Large 1
Option 1
Options 2-4, 7
Option 5A
Option 6
28,093,784
60,186,466
58,832,941
60,186,466
4,682,297
10,031,078
9,805,490
10,031,078
5-10
-------
Table 5.2-1 (Continued)
Animal Type
Size Category
Regulatory Option
Miles Traveled
Gallons of Fuel Used
Dairy Medium CAFOs
Medium 3
Medium 2
Medium 1
Option 1
Options 2-4, 7
Option 5A
Option 6
Option 1
Options 2-4, 7
Option 5A
Option 6
Option 1
Options 2-4, 7
Option 5A
Option 6
51,725
340,149
340,331
340,149
536,177
1,361,313
1,206,920
1,361,313
34,681
1,290,654
1,290,915
1,290,654
8,621
56,692
56,722
56,692
89,363
226,886
201,153
226,886
5,780
215,109
215,153
215,109
Heifer Medium CAFOs
Medium 3
Medium 2
Medium 1
Option 1
Options 2-4, 7
Option 5
Option 6
Option 1
Options 2-4, 7
Option 5
Option 6
Option 1
Options 2-4, 7
Option 5
Option 6
288
5,054
5,071
5,054
1,663
8,908
9,195
8,908
3,281
13,109
13,696
13,109
48
842
845
842
277
1,485
1,533
1,485
547
2,185
2,283
2,185
Swine - Farrow-to-Finish Large CAFOs
Large 2
Option 1
Options 2-4, 7
Option 5
Option 6
643,084
11,174,855
6,065,656
10,533,198
107,181
1,862,476
1,010,943
1,755,533
5-11
-------
Table 5.2-1 (Continued)
Animal Type
Size Category
Regulatory Option
Miles Traveled
Gallons of Fuel Used
Swine - Farrow-to-Finish Large CAFOs (cont.)
Large 1
Option 1
Options 2-4, 7
Option 5
Option 6
89,734
1,473,004
616,901
1,473,004
14,956
245,501
102,817
245,501
Swine - Farrow-to-Finish Medium CAFOs
Medium 3
Medium 2
Medium 1
Option 1
Options 2-4, 7
Option 5
Option 6
Option 1
Options 2-4, 7
Option 5
Option 6
Option 1
Options 2-4, 7
Option 5
Option 6
3,435
66,661
27,844
66,661
3,478
69,183
30,034
69,183
3,792
75,370
32,699
75,370
572
11,110
4,641
11,110
580
11,531
5,006
11,531
632
12,562
5,450
12,562
Swine - Grow-Finish Large CAFOs
Large 2
Large 1
Option 1
Options 2-4, 7
Option 5
Option 6
Option 1
Options 2-4, 7
Option 5
Option 6
440,194
6,849,729
3,397,800
6,684,737
92,026
2,063,948
1,053,580
2,063,948
73,366
1,141,622
566,300
1,114,123
15,338
343,991
175,597
343,991
Swine - Grow-Finish Medium CAFOs
Medium 3
Option 1
Options 2-4, 7
Option 5
Option 6
3,603
76,704
41,543
76,704
601
12,784
6,924
12,784
5-12
-------
Table 5.2-1 (Continued)
Animal Type
Size Category
Regulatory Option
Miles Traveled
Gallons of Fuel Used
Swine - Grow-Finish Medium CAFOs (cont.)
Medium 2
Medium 1
Option 1
Options 2-4, 7
Option 5
Option 6
Option 1
Options 2-4, 7
Option 5
Option 6
2,363
46,616
26,373
46,616
2,925
57,681
32,616
57,681
394
7,769
4,396
7,769
487
9,613
5,436
9,613
Broiler - Large CAFOs
Large 2
Large 1
Option 1
Options 2-4, 7
Option 5
Option 6
Option 1
Options 2-4, 7
Option 5
Option 6
487,123
2,307,939
2,307,939
2,307,939
244,752
1,348,753
1,348,753
1,348,753
81,187
384,656
384,656
384,656
40,792
224,792
224,792
224,792
Broiler - Medium CAFOs
Medium 3
Medium 2
Medium 1
Option 1
Options 2-4, 7
Option 5
Option 6
Option 1
Options 2-4, 7
Option 5
Option 6
Option 1
Options 2-4, 7
Option 5
Option 6
26,504
168,207
168,207
168,207
17,965
117,847
117,847
117,847
8,863
65,403
65,403
65,403
4,417
28,035
28,035
28,035
2,994
19,641
19,641
19,641
1,477
10,901
10,901
10,901
5-13
-------
Table 5.2-1 (Continued)
Animal Type
Size Category
Regulatory Option
Miles Traveled
Gallons of Fuel Used
Layer - Dry Large CAFOs
Large 2
Large 1
Option 1
Options 2-4, 7
Option 5
Option 6
Option 1
Options 2-4, 7
Option 5
Option 6
242,268
706,019
706,019
706,019
374,893
1,092,423
1,092,423
1,092,423
40,378
117,670
117,670
117,670
62,482
182,070
182,070
182,070
Layer- Dry Medium CAFOs
Medium 3
Medium 2
Medium 1
Option 1
Options 2-4, 7
Option 5
Option 6
Option 1
Options 2-4, 7
Option 5
Option 6
Option 1
Options 2-4, 7
Option 5
Option 6
246
730
730
730
894
2,672
2,672
2,672
1,388
3,583
3,583
3,583
41
122
122
122
149
445
445
445
231
597
597
597
Layer - Wet Large CAFOs
Large 1
Option 1
Options 2-4, 7
Option 5
Option 6
191,544
640,724
260,370
640,724
31,924
106,787
43,395
106,787
Layer- Wet Medium CAFOs
Medium 3
Option 1
Options 2-4, 7
Option 5
Option 6
567
1,699
623
1,699
95
283
104
283
5-14
-------
Table 5.2-1 (Continued)
Animal Type
Size Category
Regulatory Option
Miles Traveled
Gallons of Fuel Used
Turkey Large CAFOs
Large 1
Option 1
Options 2-4, 7
Option 5
Option 6
178,235
1,354,208
1,354,208
1,354,208
29,706
225,701
225,701
225,701
Turkey Medium CAFOs
Medium 3
Medium 2
Medium 1
Option 1
Options 2-4, 7
Option 5
Option 6
Option 1
Options 2-4, 7
Option 5
Option 6
Option 1
Options 2-4, 7
Option 5
Option 6
1,025
8,819
8,819
8,819
1,223
10,749
10,749
10,749
1,329
11,710
11,710
11,710
171
1,470
1,470
1,470
204
1,791
1,791
1,791
221
1,952
1,952
1,952
5-15
-------
5.3.2 Energy Usage Methodology
The cost model ran two different scenarios (i.e., before and after implementation
of Option 6) using the FarmWare model to determine the energy impacts of two model farm
dairies and ten swine model farm operations. Each dairy model represents a hose or flush Large
dairy in Tulare, California. EPA believes that this model is representative of a Large dairy
because the majority of Large dairies are in the Pacific region. Each swine model represents
either a grow-fmish or farrow-to-finish operation in each of the five regions, using either a pit,
lagoon, or evaporative lagoon waste management system. The cost model assumes the model
farms use the following waste management practices:
• Hose dairies use a solids separator followed by a complete mix digester;
• Flush dairies use a solids separator followed by a covered lagoon;
• All swine operations with pits (except Large 2 farrow-to-finish operations
in the Mid-Atlantic region) use a pull plug system, followed by a new
covered lagoon with a new second cell for effluent;
• Large 2 farrow-to-finish operations with pits in the Mid-Atlantic region
use a scrape mix system with a storage tank, followed by a complete mix
digester; and
• Lagoon and evaporative lagoon swine operations use a new covered
lagoon, with the old cell used for effluent storage.
The baseline electricity is estimated by the FarmWare model as the total
electricity required to run the dairy or swine operation. Appendix H provides an example model
farm calculation for electricity use.
5.3.3 Model Farm Results
The estimated electrical usage for dairies at baseline and under Option 6 is
presented in Table 5.3-1. Electricity use at dairy operations was only modeled for the Pacific
region. Estimates of industry-level electricity use for all five regions are obtained by multiplying
5-16
-------
the model facility electrical use calculated for the Pacific region (kW-hr/yr) by the number of
facilities in each region.
Table 5.3-1
Electrical Usage for Anaerobic Digestion at Dairies
by Model Farm and Regulatory Option (kW-hr/yr)
Animal
Type
Dairy -
Hose
Dairy -
Flush
Size Class
Large 1
Large 1
Regulatory
Option
Baseline
Option 6
Baseline
Option 6
Region
Central
NC
NC
NC
NC
Mid-
Atlantic
NC
NC
NC
NC
Midwest
NC
NC
NC
NC
Pacific
1,396,344
139,284
1,396,344
908,412
South
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC - Not calculated. Model facility level estimates of electricity use for dairy operations are only calculated for the Pacific
Region.
As shown in Table 5.3-1, it is estimated that there is a net decrease in electricity
use of approximately 1,257,060 and 487,932 kilowatt hours annually for the dairy hose and dairy
flush model farms, respectively, due to the energy savings of methane recovery using anaerobic
digestion. This results in an energy savings of 1,024,574,418 kilowatt hours annually for all
Large dairies.
Table 5.3-2 presents the estimated electrical usage at swine operations at baseline
and under Option 6. Swine operations located in the Pacific and South regions were not
modeled; therefore, electricity use was only calculated for the Central, Mid-Atlantic, and
Midwest regions. The cost model estimates industry-level electricity use for these three regions
by multiplying the model facility electrical use calculated for each region (kW-hr/yr) by the
number of facilities in that region.
As shown in Table 5.3-2, there is a net decrease in annual electrical usage under
Option 6 for Large swine grow-fmish and farrow-to-finish operations in the Central, Mid-
Atlantic, and Midwest regions. An annual energy savings of 1,042,211,364 and 1,175,353,728
kilowatt hours is expected for all Large 1 and Large 2 swine operations, respectively.
5-17
-------
Table 5.3-2
Electrical Usage for Anaerobic Digestion at Swine Operations
by Model Farm and Regulatory Option (kW-hr/yr)
Animal
Type
Swine -
Grow-Finish
Swine -
Farrow-to-
Finish
Waste
Management
Lagoon
Deep Pit
Lagoon
Deep Pit
Size Class
Large 2
Large 1
Large 2
Large 1
Large 2
Large 1
Large 2
Large 1
Regulatory
Option
Baseline
Option 6
Baseline
Option 6
Baseline
Option 6
Baseline
Option 6
Baseline
Option 6
Baseline
Option 6
Baseline
Option 6
Baseline
Option 6
Region
Central
3,398,004
1,817,700
439,752
253,164
NA
NA
NA
NA
544,872
105,120
1,815,948
253,164
NA
NA
NA
NA
Mid-
Atlantic
1,059,960
520,344
451,140
234,768
1,059,960
489,684
451,140
222,504
1,076,604
169,944
581,664
57,816
1,076,604
107,748
581,664
57,816
Midwest
1,189,608
652,620
435,372
252,288
1,189,608
627,216
435,372
243,528
877,752
145,416
649,992
119,136
877,752
109,500
649,992
93,732
NA- Not applicable.
5-18
-------
6.0 INDUSTRY-LEVEL NWQI ESTIMATES
This section summarizes the industry-level NWQI estimates for each of the
regulatory options described in Section 1.2. To evaluate the impact of the final regulation on
NWQI, the model farm emissions presented in Sections 2.0 through 5.0 can be extrapolated to
the population of animal feeding operations covered by the rule, as shown in Equation 6-1. The
model farm estimates in each region for feedlot operations presented in Section 2.0 are
multiplied by the number of farms in each region, and the results for each region are summed.
Next, the estimates by model farm are summed to arrive at the industry-level NWQI estimates by
animal type.
Emissionammal J^ J^ (Model Farm Emission x Number of Facilities)
model farm region
Note that the model farm estimates in each region for land application activities,
vehicle emissions, and energy impacts presented in Sections 3.0 through 5.0 are first multiplied
by a model farm frequency factor based on the percentage of facilities classified as Category 1, 2,
or 3. These results are then multiplied by the number of farms in each region. The results for
each region are summed to arrive at the industry total NWQI estimates.
6.1 Summary of Air Emissions for Beef and Dairy Subcategories
Tables 6.2-1 and 6.2-2 present estimates for Large beef (includes heifer) and dairy
CAFOs and Tables 6.2-7 and 6.2-8 present estimates for Medium beef (includes heifer) and dairy
CAFOs. The tables are presented at the end of this section.
Option 1
Option 1 is expected to result in a change in precursor pollutant (i.e., ammonia
and hydrogen sulfide) emissions from CAFOs. Total ammonia emissions from beef (includes
heifer) and dairy CAFOs, including both the production area and land application activities,
6-1
-------
decrease under Option 1. Production area emissions decrease due to the added step of solids
separation in waste management. Option 1 also requires agronomic application of manure, litter,
and other process wastewater on site, which results in decreased application of manure nitrogen
to cropland on site and decreased on-site land application ammonia emissions. However, off-site
application of manure nitrogen increases, which also increases the off-site land application
ammonia emissions. Hydrogen sulfide emissions from the production area decrease for dairies
also because of the practice of solids separation, which allows for increased aerobic
decomposition and the inhibition of hydrogen sulfide formation.
In addition, Option 1 is expected to result in a change in greenhouse gas
emissions. For Large beef (includes heifer) and dairy CAFOs, methane emissions decrease due
to the added step of solids separation in the waste management system. The separated solids are
stockpiled rather than held in waste storage ponds or anaerobic lagoons. This drier method of
manure handling reduces anaerobic conditions and the potential for volatile solids to convert to
methane. This approach also results in greater conversion of nitrogen to nitrous oxide; thus,
nitrous oxide emissions from dairies increase. For Medium beef (includes heifer) CAFOs,
methane emissions increase due to increased liquid storage from baseline.
Due to the requirement under Option 1 to apply manure, litter, and other process
wastewater at nitrogen-based agronomic rates, CAFOs with insufficient land on which to apply
their waste at these rates will transport the excess manure off site. Due to this increase in
transportation, emissions of criteria air pollutants increase from baseline for beef (includes
heifer) and dairy CAFOs.
Options 2-4 and 7
Options 2-4 and 7 also result in changes to precursor and greenhouse gas
emissions as discussed for Option 1. However, these options require manure, litter, and other
process wastewater to be applied at agronomic rates for phosphorus for some operations.
Therefore, criteria air emissions increase compared to baseline and Option 1 due to an increase in
the amount of manure nutrients transported off site.
6-2
-------
Option 5A
Option 5 A requires the implementation of composting at beef (includes heifer)
and dairy CAFOs. Under Option 5A, ammonia emissions increase for these operations.
Ammonia volatilizes rapidly from drying manure, resulting in an increase in emissions as more
manure is handled as a solid rather than a liquid or slurry. In addition, composting practices
release more emissions than stockpiles because the windrows are turned regularly, exposing
more manure to the air. Stockpiles tend to form outer crusts that reduce the potential for
volatilization.
Under a composting option, production area methane emissions increase as a
result of the addition of organic material to the waste prior to composting. This material
decomposes and contributes to increased methane emissions compared to other options and
baseline. Nitrous oxide emissions also increase for these operations, as aerobic storage enhanced
by windrow turning promotes the release of this gas.
Option 5A also results in an increase in criteria air emissions. The practice of
composting requires turning equipment, which consumes fuel and generates additional air
emissions. However, this increase is not as large as the increase under Options 2-4, 6, and 7.
The additional criteria pollutants emitted by composting equipment is partially offset by
reductions in transportation emissions, resulting from a decrease in the weight and/or volume of
the composted material.
Option 6
Under Option 6, emissions of pollutants do not differ from Option 2 for all beef
(includes heifer) CAFOs, and for Medium dairy CAFOs. However, for Large dairy CAFOs, this
option results in changes to greenhouse gas and criteria air emissions. Methane and nitrous oxide
emissions from the production area of Large dairy CAFOs decrease substantially, due to the
addition of an anaerobic digester with energy recovery. Generated methane is collected as biogas
and converted to energy, and nitrous oxide is oxidized during the combustion process. Emissions
6-3
-------
of nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide, and sulfur dioxide increase due to combustion of the
biogas.
6.2 Summary of Air Emissions for Swine, Poultry, and Veal Operations
Tables 6.2-3 through 6.2-6 present estimates for Large veal, swine, and poultry
CAFOs and Tables 6.2-9 through 6.2-12 present estimates for Medium veal, swine, and poultry
CAFOs.
Option 1
Emissions of precursor pollutants and greenhouse gases do not change for veal,
swine, and poultry operations under Option 1, as this option does not result in changes to the
production area waste management procedures. However, criteria air pollution increases for
swine and poultry operations due to the nitrogen-based application requirements and the
associated increases in transportation of manure nutrients off site. Emissions for veal operations
do not change from baseline because it is assumed that they have adequate cropland to apply all
waste on site and consequently do not transport any manure.
Options 2-4 and 7
Under these options, emissions of precursor pollutants and greenhouse gases do
not change from baseline for all veal, swine, and poultry operations, as waste handling practices
are not expected to change.
As in Option 1, there is no increase in criteria air pollutant emissions for veal
operations because they are not expected to transport manure off site. However, there is an
increase in criteria air pollutant emissions for swine and poultry operations when compared to
baseline and Option 1 because of the increased transport of waste necessitated by the
phosphorus-based application requirement.
6-4
-------
Option 5
Option 5 requires zero discharge, with no allowance for overflow. It is expected
that operations will implement total confinement and covered storage, in addition to the
requirements of Option 2, for all swine, poultry, and veal operations. Under this option,
ammonia emissions decrease for veal, swine, and chicken operations. Usually, ammonia in the
effluent from the covered lagoon is released upon exposure to air. Option 5, however, is based
on covered storage at all times; thus, depending on the application methods (e.g., if the waste is
incorporated into the soil), ammonia emissions could substantially decrease. The use of a
covered lagoon lowers the production area ammonia emissions. It should be noted, however, that
ammonia emissions increase from material applied to land both on site and off site. Ammonia
emissions from turkey operations do not change compared to baseline. Emissions of hydrogen
sulfide decrease for veal and swine and drop to zero for wet-layer operations due to the practice
of covered storage.
Methane and nitrous oxide emissions from the production area decrease for all
veal, chicken, and swine operations as a result of total confinement and covered storage.
However, nitrous oxide emissions increase from material applied to land both on site and off site.
Veal operations emit a larger quantity of nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide, and
sulfur dioxide compared with baseline and all other options due to flaring. Wet layer and swine
operations also emit additional criteria air pollutants compared to baseline because of this
practice. However, compared to Options 2-4 and 7, these operations emit a smaller amount of
VOCs, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter, and carbon monoxide but a larger amount of sulfur
dioxide under Option 5. For turkey operations, criteria air emissions under Option 5 increase
from baseline to the same level that results from Options 2-4, 6 and 7.
Option 6
Under Option 6, emissions of precursor pollutants do not differ from Option 2 for
all veal and poultry CAFOs and for Medium swine CAFOs. However, for Large swine CAFOs,
6-5
-------
this option results in changes to greenhouse gas and criteria air emissions. Methane and nitrous
oxide emissions from the production area of Large swine CAFOs decrease substantially, due to
the addition of an anaerobic digester with energy recovery. Generated methane is collected as
biogas and converted to energy, and nitrous oxide is oxidized during the combustion process.
Emissions of nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide, and sulfur dioxide increase due to combustion
of the biogas.
6.3 Energy Impacts
The regulatory options evaluated for CAFOs are based on the use of certain waste
management systems and land application practices that may impact electricity and fuel usage.
Both energy usage indicators were estimated in relation to baseline, with electricity usage in units
of megawatt-hours per year (MW-hr/yr) and fuel usage in gallons.
Increased electricity usage occurs at beef (includes heifer) and dairy CAFOs under
all options. Surface runoff from the feedlot must be collected and stored before it can be land
applied. These additional measures require an increase in electricity expenditures. Because veal,
poultry, and swine are confined in houses, these operations do not experience elevated electricity
demands, as there are no additional runoff controls expected. In addition, the land application of
waste consumes electricity during the operation of the irrigation system. It is assumed that swine
and poultry operations already land apply their waste and therefore do not experience additional
electricity needs. However, some beef (includes heifer) operations and dairies do not currently
collect and land apply their liquid waste, and a zero discharge policy would likely result in these
operations collecting and land applying this waste using new irrigation systems. As a result, the
energy requirements of these operations are expected to increase.
Under Option 1, all operations except veal operations experience an increase in
fuel usage due to the requirement that manure be land applied according to agronomic rates for
nitrogen. This requirement is expected to result in excess manure nutrients being transported to
off-site land application sites. This fuel usage grows under Options 2-4, 6 and 7 because of the
more stringent phosphorus-based requirement and the resultant increase in the amount of manure
6-6
-------
to be transported. Veal operations are assumed to apply all waste on site no matter the option
and thus do not incur additional energy costs.
Under Option 5, swine and chicken operations use less fuel as a result of the total
confinement and covered storage requirements. Fuel consumption at veal and turkey operations
does not change from baseline under any option.
Under Option 5 A, which requires composting at beef (includes heifer) and dairy
CAFOs, fuel usage by transportation vehicles decreases due to a decrease in the weight and/or
volume of the waste. Nevertheless, because of the fuel demands of the composting equipment,
total fuel usage at beef and heifer operations increases compared to other options. Because all
beef (includes heifer) waste is deposited on the drylot, a large amount of waste is available for
composting. The additional fuel usage of composting equipment at these operations offsets the
decrease from lower transportation fuel requirements. At dairies, however, much of the manure
is in liquid and slurry form and less solid waste can be composted. Consequently, the energy
demands of the composting equipment do not outweigh the energy saved from a reduction in
transportation, and the overall fuel usage for dairies decreases under Option 5A.
Overall electricity use decreases at those operations that use anaerobic digesters
under Option 6. Large swine and dairy CAFOs that digest their waste and recover and use the
biogas to operate an engine generate excess energy, which can be sold or used to operate other
machinery.
6-7
-------
Table 6.2-1
NWQIs for Beef (Includes Heifers) - Large CAFOs
NWQI
Baseline
Regulatory Option
Option 1
Option 2
Option 3
Option 4
Option 5
Option 5A
Option 6
Option 7
AIR EMISSIONS
Precursor Pollutants (tons per year)
Ammonia (NH3)
Hydrogen Sulfide (H2S)
385,256
NC
383,154
NC
383,154
NC
383,154
NC
383,154
NC
505,713
NC
383,154
NC
383,154
NC
Greenhouse Gases (Tg/yr CO2 - Equiv)
Methane (CH4)
Nitrous Oxide (N2O)
0.93
7.72
0.86
7.72
0.86
7.72
0.86
7.72
0.86
7.72
1.13
7.93
0.86
7.72
0.86
7.72
Criteria Air Pollutants (tons per year)3
Volatile Organic
Compounds (VOCs)
Nitrogen Oxides (NOx)
Particulate Matter (PM)
Carbon Monoxide (CO)
Sulfur Dioxide (SO2)
Baseline
Baseline
Baseline
Baseline
Baseline
1.4
29.3
1.0
7.6
NC
18.6
387.5
12.9
103.8
NC
18.6
387.5
12.9
103.8
NC
18.6
387.5
12.9
103.8
NC
18.7
389.8
13.0
104.4
NC
18.6
387.5
12.9
103.8
NC
18.6
387.5
12.9
103.8
NC
BASELINE + ENERGY USAGE3
Electricity Usage
(MW-hr/yr)
Fuel Usage
(gallons/yr)
Baseline
Baseline
Baseline
178,069
37,986
2,280,586
37,986
2,280,586
37,986
2,280,586
38,257
2,295,467
37,986
2,280,586
37,986
2,280,586
oo
NC - Not calculated.
^Energy estimates reflect the incremental change in usage from baseline.
-------
Table 6.2-2
NWQIs for Dairy - Large CAFOs
NWQI
Baseline
Regulatory Option
Option 1
Option 2
Option 3
Option 4
Option 5
Option 5A
Option 6
Option 7
AIR EMISSIONS
Precursor Pollutants (tons per year)
Ammonia (NH3)
Hydrogen Sulfide (H2S)
151,595
5,986
147,591
3,611
147,591
3,611
147,591
3,611
147,591
3,611
162,576
3,611
147,591
3,611
147,591
3,611
Greenhouse Gases (Tg/yr CO2 - Equiv)
Methane (CH4)
Nitrous Oxide (NOx)
5.85
1.46
3.60
1.95
3.60
1.95
3.60
1.95
3.60
1.95
3.68
2.72
0.02
0.56
3.60
1.95
Criteria Air Pollutants (tons per year)3
Volatile Organic
Compounds (VOCs)
Nitrogen Oxides (NOx)
Particulate Matter (PM)
Carbon Monoxide (CO)
Sulfur Dioxide (SO2)
Baseline
Baseline
Baseline
Baseline
Baseline
42.4
850.3
26.5
240.5
NC
90.8
1820.1
56.8
514.3
NC
90.8
1820.1
56.8
514.3
NC
90.8
1820.1
56.8
514.3
NC
88.7
1779.0
55.5
502.7
NC
90.8
1841.3
56.8
519.7
20.1
90.8
1820.1
56.8
514.3
NC
BASELINE + ENERGY USAGE3
Electricity Usage
(MW-hr/yr)
Fuel Usage
(gallons/yr)
Baseline
Baseline
Baseline
4,682,297
14,430
10,031,078
14,430
10,031,078
14,430
10,031,078
14,430
9,805,490
(1,009,331)
10,031,078
14,430
10,031,078
NC - Not calculated.
^Energy estimates reflect the incremental change in usage from baseline.
-------
Table 6.2-3
NWQIs for Veal - Large CAFOs
NWQI
Baseline
Regulatory Option
Option 1
Option 2
Option 3
Option 4
Option 5 Optio
n 5A Option 6
Option 7
AIR EMISSIONS
Precursor Pollutants (tons per year)
Ammonia (NH3)
Hydrogen Sulfide (H2S)
149
10
149
10
149
10
149
10
149
10
104
2
149
10
149
10
Greenhouse Gases (Tg/yr CO2 - Equiv)
Methane (CH4)
Nitrous Oxide (N2O)
0.001
0.0017
0.001
0.0017
0.001
0.0017
0.001
0.0017
0.001
0.0017
0.000
0.0021
0.001
0.0017
0.001
0.0017
Criteria Air Pollutants (tons per year)3
Volatile Organic
Compounds (VOCs)
Nitrogen Oxides (NOx)
Particulate Matter (PM)
Carbon Monoxide (CO)
Sulfur Dioxide (SO2)
Baseline
Baseline
Baseline
Baseline
Baseline
Baseline
Baseline
Baseline
Baseline
Baseline
Baseline
Baseline
Baseline
Baseline
Baseline
Baseline
Baseline
Baseline
Baseline
Baseline
Baseline
Baseline
Baseline
Baseline
Baseline
Baseline |
0.41
Baseline |
0.36
0.41
Baseline
Baseline
Baseline
Baseline
Baseline
Baseline
Baseline
Baseline
Baseline
Baseline
BASELINE + ENERGY USAGE3
Electricity Usage
(MW-hr/yr)
Fuel Usage
(gallons/yr)
Baseline
Baseline
Baseline
Baseline
Baseline
Baseline
Baseline
Baseline
Baseline
Baseline
Baseline li
Baseline
Baseline
Baseline
Baseline
Baseline
NC - Not calculated.
aEnergy estimates reflect the incremental change in usage from baseline.
-------
Table 6.2-4
NWQIs for Swine - Large CAFOs
NWQI
Baseline
Regulatory Option
Option 1
Option 2
Option 3
Option 4
Opt
Option 5 5j
ion
\ Option 6
Option 7
AIR EMISSIONS
Precursor Pollutants (tons per year)
Ammonia (NH3)
Hydrogen Sulfide (H2S)
183,732
13,036
183,732
13,036
183,732
13,036
183,732
13,036
183,732
13,036
109,037
2,150
183,732
13,036
183,732
13,036
Greenhouse Gases (Tg/yr CO2 - Equiv)
Methane (CH4)
Nitrous Oxide (NOx)
12.46
0.29
12.46
0.29
12.46
0.29
12.46
0.29
12.46
0.29
2.27
0.52
0
0.20
12.46
0.29
Criteria Air Pollutants (tons per year)3
Volatile Organic
Compounds (VOCs)
Nitrogen Oxides (NOx)
Particulate Matter (PM)
Carbon Monoxide (CO)
Sulfur Dioxide (SO2)
Baseline
Baseline
Baseline
Baseline
Baseline
1.9
38.5
1.2
10.9
NC
32.8
655.4
20.4
185.9
NC
32.8
655.4
20.4
185.9
NC
32.8
655.4
20.4
185.9
NC
16.9
404.7
10.5
154.1
66.0
31.5
700.8
19.6
196.8
66.0
32.8
655.4
20.4
185.9
NC
BASELINE + ENERGY USAGE3
Electricity Usage
(MW-hr/yr)
Fuel Usage
(gallons/yr)
Baseline
Baseline
Baseline
210,840
Baseline
3,593,589
Baseline
3,593,589
Baseline
3,593,589
Baseline
1,855,656 /
(2,217,565)
3,459,148
Baseline
3,593,589
NC - Not calculated.
aEnergy estimates reflect the incremental change in usage from baseline.
-------
Table 6.2-5
NWQIs for Chickens - Large CAFOs
NWQI
Baseline
Regulatory Option
Option 1
Option 2
Option 3
Option 4
Option 5 Optio
n 5A Option 6
Option 7
AIR EMISSIONS
Precursor Pollutants (tons per year)
Ammonia (NH3)
Hydrogen Sulfide (H2S)
205,038
1,146
205,038
1,146
205,038
1,146
205,038
1,146
205,038
1,146
200,755
0
205,038
1,146
205,038
1,146
Greenhouse Gases (Tg/yr CO2 - Equiv)
Methane (CH4)
Nitrous Oxide (N2O)
1.19
2.30
1.19
2.30
1.19
2.30
1.19
2.30
1.19
2.30
0.27
2.40
1.19
2.30
1.19
2.30
Criteria Air Pollutants (tons per year)3
Volatile Organic
Compounds (VOCs)
Nitrogen Oxides (NOx)
Particulate Matter (PM)
Carbon Monoxide (CO)
Sulfur Dioxide (SO2)
Baseline
Baseline
Baseline
Baseline
Baseline
1.9
41.0
1.5
10.4
NC
7.5
161.7
5.8
40.8
NC
7.5
161.7
5.8
40.8
NC
7.5
161.7
5.8
40.8
NC
6.9
152.7
5.4
39.8
2.6
7.5
161.7
5.8
40.8
NC
7.5
161.7
5.8
40.8
NC
BASELINE + ENERGY USAGE3
Electricity Usage
(MW-hr/yr)
Fuel Usage
(gallons/yr)
Baseline
Baseline
Baseline
256,763
Baseline
1,015,976
Baseline
1,015,976
Baseline
1,015,976
Baseline |
952,584
Baseline
1,015,976
Baseline
1,015,976
to
NC - Not calculated.
^Energy estimates reflect the incremental change in usage from baseline.
-------
Table 6.2-6
NWQIs for Turkeys - Large CAFOs
NWQI
Baseline
Regulatory Option
Option 1
Option 2
Option 3
Option 4
Option 5 Optio
n 5A Option 6
Option 7
AIR EMISSIONS
Precursor Pollutants (tons per year)
Ammonia (NH3)
Hydrogen Sulfide (H2S)
35,599
NC
35,599
NC
35,599
NC
35,599
NC
35,599
NC
35,599
NC
35,599
NC
35,599
NC
Greenhouse Gases (Tg/yr CO2 - Equiv)
Methane (CH4)
Nitrous Oxide (N2O)
0.09
1.05
0.09
1.05
0.09
1.05
0.09
1.05
0.09
1.05
0.09
1.05
0.09
1.05
0.09
1.05
Criteria Air Pollutants (tons per year)3
Volatile Organic
Compounds (VOCs)
Nitrogen Oxides (NOx)
Particulate Matter (PM)
Carbon Monoxide (CO)
Sulfur Dioxide (SO2)
Baseline
Baseline
Baseline
Baseline
Baseline
0.2
4.6
0.2
1.2
NC
1.6
35.3
1.3
8.8
NC
1.6
35.3
1.3
8.8
NC
1.6
35.3
1.3
8.8
NC
1.6
35.3
1.3
8.8
NC
1.6
35.3
1.3
8.8
NC
1.6
35.3
1.3
8.8
NC
BASELINE + ENERGY USAGE3
Electricity Usage
(MW-hr/yr)
Fuel Usage
(gallons/yr)
Baseline
Baseline
Baseline
29,706
Baseline
225,701
Baseline
225,701
Baseline
225,701
Baseline |
225,701
Baseline
225,701
Baseline
225,701
NC - Not calculated.
^Energy estimates reflect the incremental change in usage from baseline.
-------
Table 6.2-7
NWQIs for Beef (Includes Heifers) - Medium CAFOs
NWQI
Baseline
Regulatory Option
Option 1
Option 2
Option 3
Option 4
Option 5
Option 5A
Option 6
Option 7
AIR EMISSIONS
Precursor Pollutants (tons per year)
Ammonia (NH3)
Hydrogen Sulfide (H2S)
3990
NC
3964
NC
3964
NC
3964
NC
3964
NC
5386
NC
3964
NC
3964
NC
Greenhouse Gases (Tg/yr CO2 - Equiv)
Methane (CH4)
Nitrous Oxide (N2O)
0.012
0.08
0.013
0.08
0.013
0.08
0.013
0.08
0.013
0.08
0.016
0.10
0.013
0.08
0.013
0.08
Criteria Air Pollutants (tons per year)3
Volatile Organic
Compounds (VOCs)
Nitrogen Oxides (NOx)
Particulate Matter (PM)
Carbon Monoxide (CO)
Sulfur Dioxide (SO2)
Baseline
Baseline
Baseline
Baseline
Baseline
0.012
0.3
0.009
0.07
NC
0.067
1.4
0.049
0.37
NC
0.067
1.4
0.049
0.37
NC
0.067
1.4
0.049
0.37
NC
0.070
1.5
0.051
0.39
NC
0.067
1.4
0.049
0.37
NC
0.067
1.4
0.049
0.37
NC
BASELINE + ENERGY USAGE3
Electricity Usage
(MW-hr/yr)
Fuel Usage
(gallons/yr)
Baseline
Baseline
1,640
1,613
2,821
8,668
2,821
8,668
2,821
8,668
2,822
9,071
2,821
8,668
2,821
8,668
NC - Not calculated.
^Energy estimates reflect the incremental change in usage from baseline.
-------
Table 6.2-8
NWQIs for Dairy - Medium CAFOs
NWQI
Baseline
Regulatory Option
Option 1
Option 2
Option 3
Option 4
Option 5
Option 5A
Option 6
Option 7
AIR EMISSIONS
Precursor Pollutants (tons per year)
Ammonia (NH3)
Hydrogen Sulfide (H2S)
39,837
1,068
39,185
598
39,185
598
39,185
598
39,185
598
48,337
598
39,185
598
39,185
598
Greenhouse Gases (Tg/yr CO2 - Equiv)
Methane (CH4)
Nitrous Oxide (N2O)
0.97
0.585
0.64
0.589
0.64
0.589
0.64
0.589
0.64
0.589
0.67
0.818
0.64
0.589
0.64
0.589
Criteria Air Pollutants (tons per year)3
Volatile Organic
Compounds (VOCs)
Nitrogen Oxides (NOx)
Particulate Matter (PM)
Carbon Monoxide (CO)
Sulfur Dioxide (SO2)
Baseline
Baseline
Baseline
Baseline
Baseline
0.9
18.4
0.6
5.1
NC
4.3
87.5
2.8
24.1
NC
4.3
87.5
2.8
24.1
NC
4.3
87.5
2.8
24.1
NC
4.0
82.8
2.7
22.7
NC
4.3
87.5
2.8
24.1
NC
4.3
87.5
2.8
24.1
NC
BASELINE + ENERGY USAGE3
Electricity Usage
(MW-hr/yr)
Fuel Usage
(gallons/yr)
Baseline
Baseline
970
103,764
4,228
498,686
4,228
498,686
4,228
498,686
1,667
473,028
4,228
498,686
4,228
498,686
NC - Not calculated.
^Energy estimates reflect the incremental change in usage from baseline.
-------
Table 6.2-9
NWQIs for Veal - Medium CAFOs
NWQI
Baseline
Regulatory Option
Option 1
Option 2
Option 3
Option 4
Option 5 Optio
n 5A Option 6
Option 7
AIR EMISSIONS
Precursor Pollutants (tons per year)
Ammonia (NH3)
Hydrogen Sulfide (H2S)
12
0.7
12
0.7
12
0.7
12
0.7
12
0.7
8
0.2
12
0.7
12
0.7
Greenhouse Gases (Tg/yr CO2 - Equiv)
Methane (CH4)
Nitrous Oxide (N2O)
0.0001
0.0001
0.0001
0.0001
0.0001
0.0001
0.0001
0.0001
0.0001
0.0001
0.0000
0.0002
0.0001
0.0001
0.0001
0.0001
Criteria Air Pollutants (tons per year)3
Volatile Organic
Compounds (VOCs)
Nitrogen Oxides (NOx)
Particulate Matter (PM)
Carbon Monoxide (CO)
Sulfur Dioxide (SO2)
Baseline
Baseline
Baseline
Baseline
Baseline
Baseline
Baseline
Baseline
Baseline
Baseline
Baseline
Baseline
Baseline
Baseline
Baseline
Baseline
Baseline
Baseline
Baseline
Baseline
Baseline
Baseline
Baseline
Baseline
Baseline
Baseline IS
Baseline |
NC
0.04
0.04
Baseline
Baseline
Baseline
Baseline
Baseline
Baseline
Baseline
Baseline
Baseline
Baseline
BASELINE + ENERGY USAGE3
Electricity Usage
(MW-hr/yr)
Fuel Usage
(gallons/yr)
Baseline
Baseline
Baseline
Baseline
Baseline
Baseline
Baseline
Baseline
Baseline
Baseline
Baseline |
Baseline
Baseline
Baseline
Baseline
Baseline
NC - Not calculated.
^Energy estimates reflect the incremental change in usage from baseline.
-------
Table 6.2-10
NWQIs for Swine - Medium CAFOs
NWQI
Baseline
Regulatory Option
Option 1
Option 2
Option 3
Option 4
Option 5 Optio
n 5A Option 6
Option 7
AIR EMISSIONS
Precursor Pollutants (tons per year)
Ammonia (NH3)
Hydrogen Sulfide (H2S)
10,596
616
10,596
616
10,596
616
10,596
616
10,596
616
7,090
183
10,596
616
10,596
616
Greenhouse Gases (Tg/yr CO2 - Equiv)
Methane (CH4)
Nitrous Oxide (N2O)
0.68
0.02
0.68
0.02
0.68
0.02
0.68
0.02
0.68
0.02
0.19
0.03
0.68
0.02
0.68
0.02
Criteria Air Pollutants (tons per year)3
Volatile Organic
Compounds (VOCs)
Nitrogen Oxides (NOx)
Particulate Matter (PM)
Carbon Monoxide (CO)
Sulfur Dioxide (SO2)
Baseline
Baseline
Baseline
Baseline
Baseline
0.0
0.6
0.0
0.2
NC
0.6
11.9
0.4
3.4
NC
0.6
11.9
0.4
3.4
NC
0.6
11.9
0.4
3.4
NC
0.3
7.5
0.2
3.1
1.6
0.6
11.9
0.4
3.4
NC
0.6
11.9
0.4
3.4
NC
BASELINE + ENERGY USAGE3
Electricity Usage
(MW-hr/yr)
Fuel Usage
(gallons/yr)
Baseline
Baseline
Baseline
3,266
Baseline
65,369
Baseline
65,369
Baseline
65,369
Baseline |
31,852
Baseline
65,369
Baseline
65,369
NC - Not calculated.
^Energy estimates reflect the incremental change in usage from baseline.
-------
Table 6.2-11
NWQIs for Chickens - Medium CAFOs
NWQI
Baseline
Regulatory Option
Option 1
Option 2
Option 3
Option 4
Option 5 Optio
n 5A Option 6
Option 7
AIR EMISSIONS
Precursor Pollutants (tons per year)
Ammonia (NH3)
Hydrogen Sulfide (H2S)
6,287
3.1
6,287
3.1
6,287
3.1
6,287
3.1
6,287
3.1
6,276
0.0
6,287
3.1
6,287
3.1
Greenhouse Gases (Tg/yr CO2 - Equiv)
Methane (CH4)
Nitrous Oxide (N2O)
0.040
0.1427
0.040
0.1427
0.040
0.1427
0.040
0.1427
0.040
0.1427
0.038
0.1430
0.040
0.1427
0.040
0.1427
Criteria Air Pollutants (tons per year)3
Volatile Organic
Compounds (VOCs)
Nitrogen Oxides (NOx)
Particulate Matter (PM)
Carbon Monoxide (CO)
Sulfur Dioxide (SO2)
Baseline
Baseline
Baseline
Baseline
Baseline
0.07
1.47
0.05
0.37
NC
0.43
9.40
0.34
2.33
NC
0.43
9.40
0.34
2.33
NC
0.43
9.40
0.34
2.33
NC
0.43
9.47
0.43
2.32
0.11
0.43
9.40
0.34
2.33
NC
0.43
9.40
0.34
2.33
NC
Baseline + Energy Usage3
Electricity Usage
(MW-hr/yr)
Fuel Usage
(gallons/yr)
Baseline
Baseline
Baseline
9,404
Baseline
60,024
Baseline
60,024
Baseline
60,024
Baseline |
59,844
Baseline
60,024
Baseline
60,024
oo
NC - Not calculated.
^Energy estimates reflect the incremental change in usage from baseline.
-------
Table 6.2-12
NWQIs for Turkeys - Medium CAFOs
NWQI
Baseline
Regulatory Option
Option 1
Option 2
Option 3
Option 4
Option 5 Optio
n 5A Option 6
Option 7
AIR EMISSIONS
Precursor Pollutants (tons per year)
Ammonia (NH3)
Hydrogen Sulfide (H2S)
603
NC
603
NC
603
NC
603
NC
603
NC
603
NC
603
NC
603
NC
Greenhouse Gases (Tg/yr CO2 - Equiv)
Methane (CH4)
Nitrous Oxide (N2O)
0.002
0.018
0.002
0.018
0.002
0.018
0.002
0.018
0.002
0.018
0.002
0.018
0.002
0.018
0.002
0.018
Criteria Air Pollutants (tons per year)3
Volatile Organic
Compounds (VOCs)
Nitrogen Oxides (NOx)
Particulate Matter (PM)
Carbon Monoxide (CO)
Sulfur Dioxide (SO2)
Baseline
Baseline
Baseline
Baseline
Baseline
0.00
0.09
0.00
0.02
NC
0.04
0.82
0.03
0.20
NC
0.04
0.82
0.03
0.20
NC
0.04
0.82
0.03
0.20
NC
0.04
0.82
0.03
0.20
NC
0.04
0.82
0.03
0.20
NC
0.04
0.82
0.03
0.20
NC
BASELINE + ENERGY USAGE3
Electricity Usage
(MW-hr/yr)
Fuel Usage
(gallons/yr)
Baseline
Baseline
Baseline
596
Baseline
5,213
Baseline
5,213
Baseline
5,213
Baseline |
5,213
Baseline
5,213
Baseline
5,213
NC - Not calculated.
^Energy estimates reflect the incremental change in usage from baseline.
-------
7.0 REFERENCES
AAF Canada. 1998. Estimates of Emissions - Reducing Nitrous Oxide Emissions. The Health of
Our Air. Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Ottawa, Ontario.
http://res2.agr.ca/research-recherche/science/Healthy_Air/2d8.html.
Aneja, V.P., J.P. Chauhan, and J.T. Walker. 2002. "Characterization of Atmospheric Ammonia
Emissions from Swine Waste Storage and Treatment Lagoons." Journal of Geophysical
Research. Vol. 105: Pp. 11535-11545.
Battye, R., W. Battye, C. Overcash, and S. Fudge. 1994. Development and Selection of Ammonia
Emission Factors. Final Report. Prepared for USEPA Office of Research and
Development under Contract Number 68-D3-0034. EC/R Incorporated, August 1994.
Bryant, M.P., V.H. Varel, R.A. Frobish, and H.R. Isaacson. 1976. "The Microbiology of
Anaerobic Degradation and Methanogenesis with Special Reference to Sewage." In: KG.
Schlegel, ed. Seminar on MicrobialEnergy Conversion. Gottingen, Germany: E. Goltz
KG. p. 347.
Caprari. 2002. Caprari Pumps Performance Data, www.kifco.com. May 2002.
Eghball, B., J. Power, J. Gilley, and J. Doran. 1997. "Waste Management - Nutrient, Carbon,
and Mass Loss during Composting of Beef Cattle Feedlot Manure." Journal of
Environmental Quality. Vol 26: Pp. 189-193.
ERG. 1999. Personal communication from various waste hauling companies submitted to the
Beef and Dairy Rulemaking Record to I. Mitra, ERG. (June - August 1999).
ERG. 2001. Summary of development ofMDP Factor for methane conversion factor
calculations. Chantilly, VA. September.
Fulhage, C.D. 1998. Gaseous Emissions from Manure Management Systems: An Overview.
Presented at the ASAE Annual International Meeting. American Society of Agricultural
Engineers, Orlando, Florida, July 12-16, 1998.
Grelinger, M.A. and A. Page. 1999. Air Pollutant Emission Factors for Swine Facilities.
Presented at the AWMA Conference, October 26-28, 1999.
Groot Koerkamp, P.W.G. 1994. "Review on Emissions of Ammonia from Housing Systems for
Laying Hens in Relation to Sources, Processes, Building Design and Manure Handling."
Journal of Agricultural Engineering Research. Vol. 59: Pp. 73-87.
7-1
-------
Groot Koerkamp, P.W.G., J.H.M. Metz, G.H. Uenk, V.R. Phillips, M.R. Holden, R.W. Sneath,
J.L. Short, R.P. White, J. Hartung, J. Seedorf, M. Schroder, K.H. Lindert, S. Pedersen, H.
Takai, J.O. Johnsen, and C.M. Wathes. 1998. "Concentrations and Emissions of
Ammonia in Livestock Buildings in Northern Europe." Journal of Agricultural
Engineer ing Re search. Vol 70: Pp. 79-95.
Harper, L.A., and R.R. Sharpe. 1998. Ammonia Emissions from Swine Waste Lagoons in the
Southeastern U.S. Coastal Plains. Submitted to Division of Air Quality, North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Raleigh, North Carolina, December,
1998.
Harper, L. A, R.R. Sharpe, and T.B. Parkin. 2000. "Gaseous Nitrogen Emissions from Anaerobic
Swine Lagoons: Ammonia, Nitrous Oxide, and Dinitrogen Gas." Journal of
Environmental Quality. Vol 29: Pp. 1356-1365.
Hartung, J, and V.R. Phillips. 1994. "Control of Gaseous Emissions from Livestock Buildings
and Manure Stores." Journal of Agricultural Engineering Research. Vol 57: Pp. 173-
189.
Hashimoto, A.G., V.H. Varel, and Y.R. Chen. 1981. "Ultimate Methane Yield from Beef Cattle
Manure; Effect of Temperature, Ration Constituents, Antibiotics and Manure Age."
Agricultural Wastes. Vol 3: Pp. 241-256.
Hashimoto, A.G. 1984. "Methane from Swine Manure: Effect of Temperature and Influent
Substrate Composition on Kinetic Parameter (k)." Agricultural Wastes. Vol 9:Pp. 299-
308.
Hill, D.T. 1982. "Design of Digestion Systems for Maximum Methane Production."
Transactions of the ASAE. 25(1):226-230.
Hill, D.T. 1984. "Methane Productivity of the Major Animal Types." Transactions of the ASAE.
27(2):530-540.
Hoeksma, P., N. Verdoes, and GJ. Monteny. 1993. "Two Options for Manure Treatment to
Reduce Ammonia Emission from Pig Housing." In: Proceedings of the First
International Symposium on Nitrogen Flow and Environmental Consequences.,
Wageningen, 1993. EAAP Publication No. 69: Pp. 301-306.
Hugoson, G. (Commissioner, Minnesota Department of Agriculture and Chair, Minnesota
Environmental Quality Board). 1999. Generic Environmental Impact Statement on
Animal Agriculture: A Summary of the Literature Related to Air Quality and Odor (H).
Prepared for the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board, September, 1999.
7-2
-------
IPCC. 2000. "Good Practice Guidance and Uncertainty Management in National Greenhouse
Gas Inventories." In: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, NGGIP. Chapter 4,
Agriculture.
Jacobson, L.D, D. Paszek, R. Nicloai, D.R. Schmidt, B. Hetchler, and J. Zhu. 1999. Odor and
Gas Emissions from Animal Manure Storage Units and Buildings. Presented at the 1999
ASAE Annual International Meeting. American Society of Agricultural Engineers,
Toronto, Ontario, Canada, July 18-22, 1999.
Jewell, W.J., P.E. Wright, N.P. Fleszar, G. Green, A. Safinski, and A. Zucker. 1997. Evaluation
of Anaerobic Digestion Options for Groups of Dairy Farmers in Upstate New York.
Department of Agriculture and Biological Engineering, College of Agriculture and Life
Sciences, Cornell University. Ithaca, New York, June 1997.
Jones, D., J. Nye, and A. Dale. 2000. Methane Generation from Livestock Waste.
http: //persephone. agcom. pur due. edu/~agcom/Pub s/AE/AE-105. html. (November)
Kroodsma, W., R. Scholtens, and H. Veld. 1988. "Ammonia Emission from Poultry Housing
Systems." In: Volatile Emissions from Livestock Farming and Sewage Operations, O.
Noren, J. Voorburg, P. L'Hermite (eds.). Elsevier Appl. Sci. Publisher, London, New
York, 1988. Pp. 152-161.
Kifco, Inc. 2001. Kifco "B" Series Performance Guide, www.kifco.com. November 2001.
Koelliker, J. K. and J. R. Miner. 1971. "Desorption of Ammonia from Anaerobic Lagoons."
Transactions of the ASAE. Pp. 148-151.
Martin, J.H. 2002. A Comparison of the Performance of Three Swine Waste Stabilization
Systems. Submitted to: Kurt Roos, USEPA, March 20, 2002.
Morris, G.R. 1976. Anaerobic Fermentation of Animal Wastes: A Kinetic and Empirical Design
Fermentation. M.S. Thesis. Cornell University. Ithaca, New York.
MWPS. 1983. Midwest Plan Service: Livestock Waste Facilities Handbook. 2nd ed. Ames, IA:
Iowa State University.
MWPS. 1987. Midwest Plan Service: Structures and Environment Handbook. 11th ed. Ames,
IA: Iowa State University.
NCCES. 1994a. Livestock Manure Production and Characterization in North Carolina. North
Carolina Cooperative Extension Service. North Carolina State University, January 1994.
7-3
-------
NCCES. 1994b. Soil Facts: Dairy Manure as a Fertilizer Source. North Carolina Cooperative
Extension Service. North Carolina State University, February 1994.
NRAES. 1992. On Farm Composting Handbook. Northeast Regional Agriculture and
Engineering Service. Ithaca, NY.
Ni, I, AJ. Heber, T.T. Lim, R. Duggirala, B.L. Haymore, C.A. Diehl, and A.L. Sutton. 1998.
Hydrogen Sulfide Emissions from a Mechanically-Ventilated Swine Building During
Warm Weather. Presented at the 1998 ASAE Annual International Meeting. American
Society of Agricultural Engineers, Orlando, Florida. July 12-16, 1998.
Ni, J., AJ. Heber, C.A. Diehl, A. Claude, and T.T. Lim. 2000a. "Ammonia, Hydrogen Sulphide
and Carbon Dioxide Release from Pig Manure in Under-floor Deep Pits." Journal of
Agricultural Engineering Research. Vol 77: Pp. 53-66.
Ni, J., AJ. Heber, T.T. Lim, C.A. Diehl. 2000b. Continuous Measurement of Hydrogen Sulfide
Emissions from Two Large Swine Finishing Buildings. ASAE Paper #99-4132.
American Society of Agricultural Engineers. St. Joseph, Michigan, 14p.
Ni, J., AJ. Heber, T.T. Lim, C.A. Diehl, R.K. Duggirala, B.L. Haymore, and A.L. Sutton. 2000c.
"Ammonia Emissions from a Large Mechanically Ventilated Swine Building During
Warm Weather." Journal of Environmental Quality. Vol 29: Pp 751-758.
OSUE. 2000a. Selecting Forms of Nitrogen Fertilizer.
http://ohioline.osu.edu/agf-fact/0205 .html. Ohio State University Extension. Columbus,
Ohio.
OSUE. 2000b. Most Asked Agronomic Questions. http://ohioline.osu.edu/b760/b760_3.html.
Ohio State University Extension. Columbus, Ohio.
Oosthoek, J., W. Kroodsma, and P. Hoeksma. 1988. "Ammonia Emission from Dairy and Pig
Housing Systems." In: Odour and Ammonia Emissions from Livestock Farming., V.C.
Nielsen, J. Voorburg, and P. L'Hermite (eds.). Elsevier Appl. Sci. Publisher, London,
New York. Pp. 31-41.
Rochette, P., E. van Bochove, D. Prevost, D.A. Angers, D. Cote, and N. Bertrand. 2000. "Soil
Carbon and Nitrogen Dynamics Following Application of Pig Slurry for the 19th
Consecutive Year: II. Nitrous Oxide Fluxes and Mineral Nitrogen." Soil Science Soc. of
America Journal. Vol. 64: Pp. 1396-1403.
Safley, L.M., Jr. and P.W. Westerman. 1990. "Psychrophilic Anaerobic Digestion of Animal
Manure: Proposed Design Methodology." Biological Wastes. Vol. 34: Pp. 133-148.
7-4
-------
Schultz, T. and C. Collar. 1993. "Dairying and Air Emissions." In: Dairy Manure Management
Series. University of California.
Secrest, C.D. 1999. Field Measurements of Air Pollutants Near Swine Confined Animal Feeding
Operations using UVDOAS andFTIR. Office of Regulatory Enforcement, Air
Enforcement Division, USEPA.
Sharpe, R.R., and L.A. Harper. 1997. "Ammonia and Nitrous Oxide Emissions from Sprinkler
Irrigation Applications of Swine Effluent." Journal of Environmental Quality. Vol. 26:
Pp. 1703-1706.
Sutton, A.L., D.D. Jones, B.C. Joern, and D.M. Huber. 2001. Animal Manure as a Plant
Resource. http://www.agcom.purdue.edu/AgCom/Pubs/ID/ID-101.html. Purdue
University. West Lafayette, IN.
Sweeten, J., S. Amosson, D. Hutcheson, W. Rauh, and B.A. Stewart. 1997. "Manure Quality and
Economics, Nutrient Content. Livestock Waste Streams: Energy and Environment." In:
Proceedings of Texas Biomass Energy Opportunities Workshop Series.
Tamminga, S. 1992. Gaseous Pollutants Produced by Farm Animal Enterprises. Farm Animals
and the Environment. CAB International, Wallingford, U.K.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1985. Compilation of Air Pollution Emission
Factors. 4th ed. AP-42. Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.
U.S. EPA. 1992. Global Methane Emissions From Livestock and Poultry Manure. EPA/400/1-
91-048. Washington, DC.
U.S. EPA. 2002a. Cost Methodology Report for Animal Feeding Operations. Washington, DC.
December.
U.S. EPA. 2002b. Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2000. EPA 236-
R-02-003. Washington, DC. April.
U.S. EPA. 2002c. Mobile 6 Vehicle Emission Modeling Software.
http://www.epa.gov/otaq/m6.htmtfm60.
USDA. 1996. "Agricultural Waste Management Field Handbook." In: National Engineering
Handbook. Vol. 4: Pp. 651.
7-5
-------
USDA Agricultural Air Quality Task Force (AAQTF) Confined Livestock Air Quality
Subcommittee. 2000. Air Quality Research and Technology Transfer Programs for
Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations. Presented at USD A-AAQTF Meeting,
Washington D.C., July 18-19, 2000.
USDA NRCS. 2000. Manure Nutrients Relative to the Capacity of Cropland and Pastureland to
Assimilate Nutrients: Spatial and Temporal Trends for the United States. U.S.
Department of Agriculture (USDA), Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS),
Washington, DC.
Valli, L., S. Piccinini, and G. Bonazzi. 1991. Ammonia Emission from Two Poultry Manure
Drying Systems. Odour and Ammonia Emissions from Livestock Farming. Elsevier
Appl. Sci. Publisher, London, New York. Pp. 50-58.
Van Der Hoek, K.W. 1998. "Estimating Ammonia Emission Factors in Europe: Summary of the
Work of the UNECE Ammonia Expert Panel." Atmospheric Environment. Vol. 32, Pp.
315-316.
Van Horn, H.H., A.C. Wilkie, WJ. Powers, and R.A. Nordstedt. 1994. "Components of Dairy
Manure Management Systems." Journal of Dairy Science. Vol.77: Pp. 7.
Van Horn, H.H, G.L. Newton, R.A. Nordstedt, E.C. French, G. Kidder, D.A. Graetz, and C.F.
Chambliss. 1998. Dairy manure management: Strategies for recycling nutrient to recover
fertilizer value and avoid environmental pollution. Florida Cooperative Extension
Service, Institute of Food and Agricultural Services, University of Florida, Gainesville
FL.
Zimmatic. 2000. Zimmatic System Configuration Economic Comparison Guide.
http://www.zimmatic.com/pdfs/economic_comparisons.pdf January 6, 2000.
7-6
-------
Appendix A
Emission Factor Derivation and Detailed Calculations for Air Emissions from
Animal Confinement and Manure Management Systems -
Ammonia and Hydrogen Sulfide Emissions
-------
INTRODUCTION
Appendix A presents the derivation of ammonia and hydrogen sulfide emission
factors for drylots, confinement houses, and lagoons and ponds and example calculations for
ammonia and hydrogen sulfide emissions from manure management systems. The emission
calculations follow the methodology presented in Section 2.1 of this report.
A.1
Derivation of Emission Factors
The ammonia emission factors for drylots at cattle operations were based on data
from North Carolina Cooperative Exention Service's (NCCES) "LivestockManure Production
and Characterization in North Carolina." The ammonia and hydrogen sulfide emission factors
for confinement houses and lagoons and ponds were calculated based on the results of a literature
review conducted by EPA's Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS). To
calculate each emission factor, the applicable data points identified in the literature review were
converted to Ib NH3/yr/head and then averaged. For several operations, no applicable data points
were identified. For these operations, the emission factors were transferred from swine
operations using the percent loss of nitrogen or sulfur. To calculate the percent loss of nitrogen
or hydrogen sulfide, it was necessary to determine the amount of nitrogen or hydrogen sulfide
entering either the confinement house or the lagoon or pond. This was done by tracing the flow
of nitrogen or hydrogen sulfide through the different components of the waste management
system. The applicable data points for each emission factor and the calculations used to estimate
the emission factors are presented in the tables below.
A.1.1
Drylots
The ammonia emission factors for drylots at cattle operations (i.e., dairy, beef, and
heifer) are based on the NCCES data for cattle presented in Table A-l.
Table A-l
Nitrogen Content of Fresh and Drylot Manure at Cattle Operations
Constituent
Total Kjeldahl
Nitrogen
Fresh Manure1
Beef Unpaved
Feedlot Manure3
Difference Between
Fresh and Unpaved
Manure
(ton/day/head)
0.290
0.159
0.131
Percent of
Nitrogen Lost
45
NCCES. 1994a. Livestock Manure Production and Characterization in North Carolina. North
Carolina Cooperative Extension Service. North Carolina State University, January 1994. Tables 6 and 8A.
A-l
-------
The difference in the nitrogen content of the fresh manure and drylot manure
represents the amount of nitrogen lost from the drylot. Most of the nitrogen loss at the drylot
occurs as ammonia emissions; however, some of the nitrogen excreted at the drylot is carried
away in the runoff. Equation 2-2 in Section 2.1 of this report was used to calculate the net
amount of nitrogen contributing to ammonia emissions at cattle drylots (i.e., the portion of the
manure excreted at the drylot that is not removed with the drylot runoff). Then, Equation 2-3
was used to calculate the drylot ammonia emission factors.
A.1.2
Confinement Houses
Ammonia and hydrogen sulfide emission factors were calculated for several
different types of confinement houses to account for variations in emissions from different
operations and waste management systems.
A.l.2.1
Ammonia
Houses with Lagoon System and Flush Houses
The literature search performed by OAQPS yielded several applicable data points
for swine houses with lagoon systems, but no applicable data points for either dairy or veal flush
houses. Swine confinement houses with lagoon systems and dairy and veal flush houses have
similar waste management practices; therefore, the ammonia emission factor for swine houses
with lagoon systems was transferred to veal and dairy flush houses.
Swine
The ammonia emission factor for swine houses with lagoon systems is based on
data identified from OAQPS's literature review. Table A-2 presents the data points and
calculations used to estimate this emission factor.
Table A-2
Calculation of the Ammonia Emission Factor for Swine Houses with Lagoon
Systems
Reference
Hoeksma et al.,
1993
Hoeksma et al.,
1993
Oosthoek et al.,
1998
Emission
Factor (EF)
3.0-5.0
2.0-5.0
3.1
Units of Emission
Factor
g/animal/day
g/animal/day
kg/animal/yr
AvgEF
4
3.5
3.1
Conversion Factors
119 days/cycle,
2.8 cycles/yr,
lib/453. 6 g
119 days/cycle,
2.8 cycles/yr,
lib/453. 6 g
2.2046 Ib/kg
AVERAGE
EF
(Ib NHj/yr/head)
2.9
2.6
6.8
4.1
A-2
-------
Dairy and Veal
The ammonia emission factors for flush barns at dairies and veal operations are
based on the percent loss of nitrogen from swine confinement houses with lagoon systems. The
percent loss of nitrogen represented by the swine house with lagoon system emission factor was
calculated using Equation A-l.
% Loss of N,
house
Ammonia Housing Emission Rateswme x CF
Manure Nitrogenexcreted
100%
(A-l)
where:
% Loss of N,
house
Ammonia Housing Emission
CF
Manure Nitrogenexcreted
Percent of nitrogen excreted in swine
confinement house lost as ammonia
Ammonia emission factor for the
swine confinement house
(Ib/yr/head)
Conversion factor (14 N/17 NH3)
Nitrogen excreted at the confinement
house (Ib/yr/head).
It is estimated that 18.9 Ib N/yr/head is excreted at the confinement houses of
swine operations. As shown in Table A-l, the swine house with lagoon system emission factor is
4.1 Ib NH3/yr/head; therefore, using Equation A-l, the percentage of nitrogen lost from the house
as ammonia is:
4.1 Ib NHs/yr / head X
14 N
17NH3
18.9 IbN /yr/head
X 100%
= 17.9%
Equation A-2 was then used to convert the percent loss of nitrogen at swine
confinement houses to an emission factor in Ib NH3/yr/head for dairy flush houses.
A-3
-------
Ammonia Housing Emission Ratedairy= Manure Nitrogenexcreted x % Loss of Nhouse x CF (A-2)
where:
Ammonia Housing Emission Ratedairy= Ammonia emission factor for the
dairy flush house (Ib/yr/head)
Manure Nitrogenexcreted = Nitrogen excreted at the dairy flush
house (Ib/yr/head)
% Loss of Nhouse = Percentage of nitrogen excreted in
swine confinement house lost as
ammonia
calculated in Equation A-l
CF = Conversion factor (14 N / 17 NH3).
It is estimated that 188 Ib N/yr/head is excreted at a dairy flush house. As
calculated using Equation A-l, 17.9 percent of the nitrogen excreted at a swine confinement
house with a lagoon system is lost as ammonia; therefore, using Equation A-2, the ammonia
emission factor for flush houses at a dairy operations is:
= 188 IbN /yr/head x 0.179 x 17NH3
14N
= 40.9 Ib NH3/yr/head
Veal operations have a nitrogen excretion rate of 28 Ib N/yr/head; therefore, using
Equation A-2, a loss of 4.6 Ib N/yr/head (5.6 Ib NH3/yr/head) is expected.
Houses with Deep-Pit Systems
The ammonia emission factor for swine houses with deep-pit systems is based on
data identified from the literature review. However, there were no applicable data points
identified for veal houses with deep-pit systems; therefore, the ammonia emission factor for
swine houses with deep-pit systems was transferred to veal houses with deep-pit systems.
Swine
The literature search identified seven applicable data points for swine houses with
deep-pit systems. Table A-3 presents these data points and the calculations used to estimate the
emission factor.
Veal
The ammonia emission factor for veal houses with deep-pit systems is based on
the percent loss of nitrogen from swine houses with deep-pit systems. Swine operations have a
nitrogen excretion rate of 18.9 Ib N/yr/head. Using Equation A-l, a loss of 8.2 Ib NH3/yr/head
A-4
-------
(6.8 Ib N/yr/head) from the confinement house represents 35.7 percent of the nitrogen excreted
per year. Using Equation A-2, and given that veal operations have a nitrogen excretion rate of 28
Ib N/yr/head, a loss of 9.1 Ib N/yr/head (11.1 Ib NH3/yr/head) is expected from veal houses with
deep-pit systems.
Dairy Scrape Barns
The ammonia emission factor for scrape barns at dairy operations is based on data
identified from the literature review. Table A-4 presents the data points and calculations used to
estimate this emission factor.
Table A-3
Calculation of the Ammonia Emission Factor for
Swine Houses with Deep-Pit Systems
Reference
Battyeetal., 1994
Secrest, 1999
Hoeksmaetal., 1993
USD A, 2000
Nietal. 2000c
Hoeksmaetal., 1993
Oosthoek et al, 1988
Emission
Factor (EF)
3.18
34.9-44.6
10.0-12.0
13
145
8.0-9.0
3
Units of Emission
Factor
kg/fattening pig/yr
lb/day/2000
finishing hogs
g NH3/animal/day
g/hd/day
gNH3/500kgLW-
day
g NH3/animal/day
kg/animal/yr
AvgEF
3.18
39.75
11.0
13.0
145
8.5
3
Conversion
Factors
2.2046 Ib/kg
119 days/cycle,
2.8 cycles/yr
119 days/cycle,
2.8 cycles/yr,
1 lb/453.6 g
119 days/cycle,
2.8 cycles/yr,
1 lb/453.6 g
1 lb/453.6 g, 0.4536
kg/lb,
135 Ib/head,
119 days/cycle,
2.8 cycles/yr
119 days/cycle,
2.8 cycles/yr,
1 lb/453.6 g
2.2046 Ib/kg
AVERAGE
EF
(Ib NH3/yr/head)
7.0
6.6
8.1
9.5
13.0
6.2
6.6
8.2a
The EF data points shown in this table have be rounded; therefore, the average of these EF data points does not
exactly match the average EF presented in the table.
A-5
-------
Table A-4
Calculation of the Ammonia Emission Factor for Scrape Barns at Dairy
Operations
Reference
Van Der Hoek,
1998
Hugoson, 1999
Hugoson, 1999
Groot
Koerkamp, 1998
Emission
Factor (EF)
14.5
7-13
1.7-4.4
1207
Units of Emission
Factor
kg /animal/year
g/LU/day
L/hour-cow(500kg)
mg/hr/500 kg live
weight
AvgEF
14.5
10
3.05
1207
Conversion
Factors
2.2046 Ib/kg
!LU/500kgLW,
llb/453.6g,
612kg/hd,
365 days/yr
0.7714 g/L,
612kg/hd,
24 hrs/day,
365 days/yr
612kg/hd,
24 hrs/day,
365 days/yr,
Ig/lOOOmg,
lib/453. 6
AVERAGE
EF
(Ib NHj/yr/head)
32.0
9.85
55.6
28.3
31.4
Poultry Houses
The ammonia emission factors for broiler houses, dry layer houses, wet layer
houses, and turkey houses are based on data identified from the literature review.
Broilers
The literature search identified eight applicable data points for broiler houses.
Table A-5 presents these data points and the calculations used to estimate the emission factor.
A-6
-------
Table A-5
Calculation of the Ammonia Emission Factor for Broiler Houses
Reference
VanDerHoek, 1998
Tamminga, 1992
Battyeetal., 1994
Kroodsmaetal., 1988
Groot Koerkamp et al.,
1998
Groot Koerkamp et al.,
1998
Groot Koerkamp et al.,
1998
Groot Koerkamp et al.,
1998
Emission Factor
(EF)
0.15
0.1
0.065
21.9
19.8
11.2
8.9
18.5
Units of Emission Factor
kg/animal/yr
kg/broiler/yr
kg/animal/yr
g/animal/fattening period
mg/hr/broilers housed in
litter
mg/hr/broilers housed in
litter
mg/hr/broilers housed in
litter
mg/hr/broilers housed in
litter
Conversion
Factors
2.2046 Ib/kg
2.2046 Ib/kg
2.2046 Ib/kg
lib/453. 6 g,
6 cycles/yr"
24 hrs/day,
60 days/cycle,1
6 cycles/yr,2
lg/1,000 mg,
1 lb/453.6g
24 hrs/day,
60 days/cycle,2
6 cycles/yr,2
lg/1,000 mg,
1 lb/453.6g
24 hrs/day,
60 days/cycle,2
6 cycles/yr,2
lg/1,000 mg,
1 lb/453.6g
24 hrs/day,
60 days/cycle,2
6 cycles/yr,2
lg/1,000 mg,
1 lb/453.6g
AVERAGE
EF
(Ib NH3/yr/head)
0.33
0.22
0.14
0.29
0.38
0.21
0.17
0.35
0.26
USD A NRCS. 2000. Manure Nutrients Relative to the Capacity of Cropland and Pastureland to Assimilate
Nutrients: Spatial and Temporal Trends for the United States. U.S. Department of Agriculture (USD A), Natural
Resources Conservation Service (NCRS), Washington, DC.
A-7
-------
Dry Layers
The literature search identified two applicable data points for dry layer houses.
Table A-6 presents these data points and the calculations used to estimate the emission factor.
Table A-6
Calculation of the Ammonia Emission Factor for Dry Layer Houses
Ref No.
Groot Koerkamp et al., 1998
and Groot Koerkamp, 1994
Vallietal., 1991
Emission
Factor (EF)
386
87
Units of Emission
Factor
g/bird-year
Ib NH3/AU-yr
Conversion
Factors
1 lb/453.6 g
1 AU/100 head
AVERAGE
EF
(Ib NH3/yr/AU)
0.85
0.87
0.86
Wet Layers
The literature search identified four applicable data points for wet layer houses.
Table A-7 presents these data points and the calculations used to estimate the emission factor.
Table A-7
Calculation of the Ammonia Emission Factor for Wet Layer Houses
Ref No.
Kroodsma et al., 1988
Groot Koerkamp et al.,
1998
Hartung and Phillips,
1994
Hartung and Phillips,
1994
Emission
Factor (EF)
110
83
83
38.8
Units of Emission Factor
g/hen/yr
g/bird-year
g/hen/yr
kg/500 kg LW
(lb/500 Ib LW)
Conversion Factors
lib/453. 6 g
1 lb/453.6 g
1 lb/453.6 g
3.98 Ib/hd
AVERAGE
EF
(Ib NHj/yr/head)
0.24
0.18
0.18
0.31
0.23
A-8
-------
Turkeys
The literature search identified two applicable data points for turkey houses.
Table A-8 presents these data points and the calculations used to estimate the emission factor.
Table A-8
Calculation of the Ammonia Emission Factor for Turkey Houses
Reference
VanDerHoek, 1998
Battyeetal., 1994
Emission
Factor (EF)
0.48
0.429-0.639
Units of
Emission Factor
kg/animal/yr
kg/animal/yr
AvgEF
0.48
0.534
Conversion Factors
2.2046 Ib/kg
2.2046 Ib/kg
AVERAGE
EF
(Ib NHj/yr/head)
1.06
1.18
1.12
A.l.2.2 Hydrogen Sulfide
Houses with Deep-Pit Systems
The hydrogen sulfide emission factor for swine houses with deep-pit systems is
based on data identified in the literature review. However, there were no applicable data points
identified for veal houses with deep-pit systems; therefore, the hydrogen sulfide emission factor
for swine houses with deep-pit systems was transferred to veal houses with deep-pit systems.
Swine
OAQPS's literature search identified six applicable data points for swine houses
with deep-pit systems. Table A-9 presents these data points and the calculations used to estimate
the emission factor.
A-9
-------
Table A-9
Calculation of the Hydrogen Sulfide Emission Factor for
Swine Houses with Deep-Pit Systems
Reference
Rochette et al.,
2000
Ni et al., 2000a
Ni et al., 2000b
Nietal., 2000b
Ni et al., 2000b
Nietal., 1998
Emission
Factor (EF)
4
150
0.873
5.9
6.7
7.0
Units of Emission
Factor
//g/s/animal
(finishing)
mg/day/pig
g/500kgLW-day
g/500kgLW-day
g/500kgLW-day
g/500kgLW-day
AvgEF
4
150
0.873
5.9
6.7
5.51
Conversion Factors
1 min/3600 sec,
24 hrs/day,
119 days/cycle,
2.8 cycles/yr
Ilb/4.53xl08 vg
119 days/cycle,
2.8 cycles/yr,
1 lb/453,600 mg
lib/453. 6 g,
0.4536 kg/lb,
135 Ib/hd,
119 days/cycle,
2.8 cycles/yr
lib/453. 6 g,
0.4536 kg/lb,
135 Ib/hd,
119 days/cycle,
2.8 cycles/yr
lib/453. 6 g,
0.4536 kg/lb,
135 Ib/hd,
119 days/cycle,
2.8 cycles/yr
lib/453. 6 g,
0.4536 kg/lb,
135 Ib/hd,
119 days/cycle,
2.8 cycles/yr
AVERAGE
EF
(lbH2S/yr/head)
0.25
0.11
0.08
0.53
0.60
0.50
0.40
A-10
-------
Veal
The hydrogen sulfide emission factor for veal houses with deep-pit systems is
based on the percent loss of sulfur from swine houses with deep-pit systems. Swine operations
have a sulfur excretion rate of 3.42 Ib S/yr/head. Using Equation A-l, a loss of 0.40 Ibs
H2S/yr/head (0.38 Ib S/yr/head) from the confinement house represents 11.1 percent of the sulfur
excreted per year. Using Equation A-2, and given that veal operations have a sulfur excretion
rate of 7.14 Ib S/yr/head, a loss of 0.72 Ib S/yr/head (0.77 Ib H2S/yr/head) is expected at veal
houses with deep-pit systems.
A. 1.3 Lagoons and Ponds
Separate ammonia and hydrogen sulfide lagoon emission factors were calculated
for each animal type to account for variation in emissions due to differences in the amount of
nitrogen excreted and in waste management systems.
A.l.3.1 Ammonia
The ammonia emission factor for lagoons at swine operations is based on data
identified from OAQPS's literature review. The ammonia emission factor for lagoons and ponds
at dairies, beef feedlots, heifer, veal, and wet layer operations are transferred from swine.
Swine
The literature search identified nine applicable data points for swine houses with
deep-pit systems. Table A-10 presents these data points and the calculations used to estimate the
emission factor.
The ammonia emission factors for lagoons at dairies are based on the percent loss
of nitrogen from lagoons at swine operations. The percent loss of nitrogen represented by the
swine lagoon emission factor was calculated using Equation A-3.
A-ll
-------
Table A-10
Calculation of the Ammonia Emission Factor for
Lagoons at Swine Operations
Reference
Aneja et al., 2002
Koelliker and Miner,
1971
Fulhage, 1998
Fulhage, 1998
Martin, 2002
Martin, 2002
Harper and Sharpe,
1998
Harper and Sharpe,
1998
Harper etal., 2000
Emission
Factor (EF)
2.2
6.53
64.7
77.2
8,210
5,602
0.96
0.93
0.99
Units of Emission
Factor
kg N/yr/head
kg NH3/yr/head
Percentage of excreted
nitrogen
Percentage of excreted
nitrogen
kg/yr/500 AU
kg/yr/500 AU
kg NH3/yr/head
kg NH3/yr/head
g N/nf-day
Conversion Factors
2.2046 Ib/kg,
17NH3/14N
2.2046 Ib/kg
56 Ib N/yr-AU,
17NH3/14N,
1 AU/2.5 head
56 Ib N/yr-AU,
17NH3/14N,
1 AU/2.5 head
2.2046 Ib/kg,
1 AU/2.5 head
2.2046 Ib/kg,
1 AU/2.5 head
2.2046 Ib/kg
2.2046 Ib/kg
365 days/yr,
35,400 mVlagoon,
lib/453. 6 g,
1,620,502 Ib LW,
17 NH3/14N
AVERAGE
EF
(Ib NHj/yr/head)
5.9
14.4
17.6
21.0
14.5
9.9
2.1
2.1
2.9
10.0
A-12
-------
% LOSS Of Nlagoon =
where:
Ammonia Lagoon Emission Rateswine X CF
Nitrogeninput
X 100% (A-3)
% Loss of N,
lagoon
Ammonia Lagoon Emission Rateswine =
CF
Percentage of nitrogen entering the
swine lagoon lost as ammonia
Ammonia emission factor for the
swine lagoon (Ib ML/yr/head)
Conversion factor (14 N/17 NH3).
It is estimated that 18.9 Ib N/yr/head is excreted at swine operations. As shown in
Table A-10, the swine lagoon emission factor is 10 Ib ML/yr/head; therefore, using Equation A-
3, the percentage of nitrogen lost from the lagoon as ammonia is:
10 lbNH3/yr/head x
14N
17NH3
18.9 IbN /yr/head
x 100%
= 43.6%
Separate lagoon emission factors were calculated for dairies with and
without settling basins. At dairies with settling basins, the nitrogen flushed from the
confinement houses first flows through the settling basins before entering the lagoon, which
removes 12 percent of the nitrogen. The percent loss of nitrogen from the lagoon, calculated in
Equation A-3, was converted to emission factors in ML/year/head for lagoons at dairies using
equations A-4 and A-5.
Ammonia Lagoon Emission Ratedai no settlm = Nitrogenm x % Loss of N,oon x CF
(A-4)
where:
Ammonia Lagoon Emission =
aiiy, no settling
Nitrogeninput
% Loss of N
CF
lagoon
Ammonia emission factor for lagoons at
dairies without settling basins
(Ib ML/yr/head)
Amount of nitrogen entering the lagoon
from runoff and/or from the dairy
confinement houses
Percentage of nitrogen entering lagoons at
swine operations excreted as ammonia
calculated in Equation A-3
Conversion factor (14 N/17 ML,).
A-13
-------
Ammonia Lagoon Emission Ratedair Wlth settll
= ((Nitrogenmput house x % Loss of N ettlmg)
% Loss of Nlagoon x CF
(A-5)
where:
Ammonia Lagoon Emission
^"•^daiiy, w;th settling
Nitrogeninput house
Nitrogeninput ranoff
% Loss of Nsettling
% Loss of N,
lagoon
CF
Ammonia emission factor for lagoons at
dairies with settling basins (Ib ML/yr/head)
Amount of nitrogen entering the lagoon
from the dairy confinement houses
Amount of nitrogen entering the lagoon in
the runoff from the drylot at the dairy
operation
Percentage of nitrogen entering lagoons
removed by the settling basin (88%)
Percentage of nitrogen entering lagoons at
swine operations excreted as ammonia
calculated in Equation A-3
Conversion factor (14 N/17 NH3).
Although flush dairies and scrape dairies have the same nitrogen excretion rate,
these two types of waste management systems manage the excreted nitrogen differently. Flush
dairies transport the wastewater from both the milking parlor and the freestall barn to the lagoon.
Scrape dairies transport only the wastewater from flushing the milking parlor to the lagoon.
Table A-l 1 presents the nitrogen input to the lagoon from the confinement houses at scrape and
flush dairies, with and without settling basins.
Table A-l 1
Nitrogen Input to Lagoons from Confinement Houses at Dairy Operations
(Ib/yr/head)
Animal Type
Flush
Scrape
Excreted, Parlor
33.2
33.2
Excreted, Barn
188.5
188.5
Loss from Barn
33.8
33.8
Net Input to Lagoon
187.9
33.2
Both scrape and flush dairies also send the runoff from the drylot to the lagoon.
The same amount of nitrogen is excreted at the drylot at flush and scrape dairies. The amount of
nitrogen in the runoff sent to lagoons therefore depends on the amount of precipitation received
in each region. Table 2.1-2 in Section 2.1 of this report presents the amount of nitrogen in the
runoff at dairies for each region.
A-14
-------
After calculating the total nitrogen input to the lagoon, Equations A-4 and A-5 are
used to calculate the ammonia emission factor for the lagoon. For example, given that 188.3 Ib
N/yr/head enters the lagoon from the milking parlor and freestall barn at a flush dairy, 11.93 Ib
N/yr/head enters the lagoon in the runoff in the Mid-Atlantic region, and 43.6 percent of the
nitrogen entering lagoons at swine operations is lost as ammonia, the emission factor for a Mid-
Atlantic flush dairy with a settling basin, using Equation A-5, is:
= ((187.9 Ib N/yr/head x 0.88) + 11.93 Ib N/yr/head) x 0.436 x 17 NH3/14 N
= 93.91bNH3/yr/head
Beef and Heifer
A portion of the nitrogen excreted at drylots at beef feedlots and heifer operations
is carried away in the runoff, which collects in the storage pond. Table 2.1-2 in Section 2.1 of
this report presents the nitrogen content of the runoff by region. At operations without settling
basins, all of the nitrogen in the runoff enters the pond, and the pond emission factor can be
calculated using Equations A-3 and A-4. At operations with settling basins, the runoff first
enters the settling basin, which removes 12 percent of the nitrogen. The remaining 88 percent of
the nitrogen then enters the pond. The pond emission factor for beef feedlots with settling basins
is calculated using Equation A-6.
Ammonia Lagoon Emission Ratebeef Wlth
settling
= Nitrogen ^ x % Loss of N x % Loss of N, x CF
(A-6)
where:
Ammonia Lagoon Emission =
f, settling
Nitrogeninput ranoff
% Loss of Nsettling
% Loss of N,
CF
Veal
lagoon
Ammonia emission factor for lagoons at
beef
feedlots with settling basins (Ib
ML/yr/head)
Amount of nitrogen entering the lagoon in
the runoff from the drylot at beef feedlots
Percentage of nitrogen entering lagoons
removed by the settling basin (88%)
Percentage of nitrogen entering lagoons at
swine operations excreted as ammonia
calculated in Equation A-3
Conversion factor (14 N/l7 NH3).
Flush veal operations have lagoons in the production area. At these operations,
only the wastewater from flushing the barn is sent to the lagoon. In addition, it is assumed that
A-15
-------
all lagoon veal operations have a settling basin in place at baseline and under all regulatory
options. Veal operations have a nitrogen excretion rate of 25.6 Ib N/yr/head, and 4.5 Ib
N/yr/head is lost at the flush house. The remaining 21.1 Ib N/yr/head flows into the settling basin
before entering the lagoon. A lagoon emission factor for veal operations of 9.8 Ib NH3/yr/head
was calculated using Equation A-7.
Ammonia Lagoon Emission Rateveal
= Nitrogenmput house x »/0 Loss of N^ x »/0 Loss of ^^ x CF (A_?)
where:
Ammonia Lagoon Emission = Ammonia emission factor for
Rateveal lagoons at veal operations (Ib NH3/yr/head)
Nitrogeninput house = Amount of nitrogen entering the lagoon
from the veal confinement houses
% Loss of Nsettling = Percentage of nitrogen entering lagoons
removed by the settling basin (88%)
% Loss of Nlagoon = Percentage of nitrogen entering lagoons at
swine operations excreted as ammonia
calculated in Equation A-3
CF = Conversion factor (14 N/l7 NH3).
Wet Layers
At poultry operations using a wet layer system, waste is flushed out of the layer
house and stored in a lagoon. It is assumed that wet layer poultry operations do not have settling
basins. These operations have a nitrogen excretion rate of 1.15 Ib N/yr/head. Of this total
amount of nitrogen excreted per year, 0.19 Ib N/year/head is lost from the confinement house.
The remaining 0.96 Ib N/yr/head enters the lagoon. Therefore, using Equations A-3 and A-4, a
loss of 0.42 Ib N/yr/head (0.51 Ib NH3/yr/head) can be expected from lagoons at poultry
operations with wet layer systems.
A.l.3.2 Hydrogen Sulfide
The hydrogen sulfide emission factor for lagoons at swine operations is based on
data identified by the literature review. The hydrogen sulfide emission factors for lagoons at
dairies, veal, and wet layer operations are transferred from swine.
Swine
The literature search identified three applicable data points for lagoons at swine
operations. Table A-12 presents these data points and the calculations used to estimate the
emission factor.
A-16
-------
Table A-12
Calculation of the Hydrogen Sulfide Emission Factor for Lagoons at Swine
Operations
Reference
Jacobson et al., 1999
Grelinger and Page,
1999
Martin, 2002
Emission Factor
(EF)
4.84
2.89
1.57
Units of Emission
Factor
Ib H2S/yr/AU
Ib H2S/yr/AU
Ib H2S/yr/AU
Conversion Factors
1 AU/2.5 head
1 AU/2.5 head
1 AU/2.5 head
AVERAGE
EF
(Ib H2S/yr/head)
1.936
1.156
0.628
1.24
Dairy
The hydrogen sulfide emission factors for lagoons at dairies are based on the
percent loss of sulfur from lagoons at swine operations. Using Equation A-3 and given that
swine operations have a sulfur excretion rate of 3.42 Ib S/yr/head, a loss of 1.24 Ib H2S/yr/head
(1.17 Ib S/yr/head) from the confinement house represents 34.1 percent of the sulfur excreted per
year.
Flush dairies transport the wastewater from both the milking parlor and the
freestall barn to the lagoon. Scrape dairies only transport the wastewater from flushing the
milking parlor to the lagoon. Table A-13 presents the sulfur input to the lagoon from the
confinement houses at scrape and flush dairies. At flush and scrape dairies with settling basins,
50 percent of the sulfur entering the lagoon from the confinement houses is removed.
Table A-13
Sulfur Input to Lagoons from Confinement Houses at Dairy Operations
(Ib/yr/head)
Animal Type
Flush
Scrape
Excreted, parlor
3.8
3.8
Excreted, barn
21.3
NA
Net Input to
Lagoon
25.1
3.8
NA - Not applicable.
After calculating the total sulfur input to the lagoon, the hydrogen sulfide
emission factors for lagoons at dairy operations are calculated using Equations A-3, A-4,
and A-5.
A-17
-------
Veal
Flush veal operations have lagoons in the production area. At these operations,
only the wastewater from flushing the barn is sent to the lagoon. In addition, it is assumed that
all lagoon veal operations have a settling basin in place at baseline and under all regulatory
options. Veal operations have a nitrogen excretion rate of 6.5 Ib S/yr/head; all of the sulfur
excreted at the confinement barn enters the solids separators. Using Equations A-3, and A-7, a
loss of 1.1 Ib S/yr/head (1.2 Ib H2S/yr/head) is expected from lagoons at veal operations.
Wet Layers
At poultry operations using a wet layer system, waste is flushed out of the layer
house and stored in a lagoon. It is assumed that wet layer poultry operations do not have settling
basins. Wet layer poultry operations have a sulfur excretion rate of 0.20 Ib S/yr/head; all of the
sulfur excreted at poultry operations with wet layer systems enters the lagoon. Using Equations
A-3 and A-4, a loss of 0.066 Ib S/yr/head (0.07 Ib H2S/yr/head) is expected from lagoons at
poultry operations with wet layer systems.
A.2 Example Ammonia Calculation
This example presents the calculations of ammonia emission factors and the
annual model farm emissions of ammonia from a Flush Dairy, Central, Large 1 operation (1,430
mature cows, 429 heifers, 429 calves).
A.2.1 Baseline Emissions
Emissions are calculated for four types of manure management components:
drylots, confinement houses, lagoons, and stockpiles. The first set of calculations presents the
emissions for a flush dairy with solids separation in place, and the second set presents a flush
dairy without solids separation.
A.2.1.1 Flush Dairy with Solids Separation
Drvlot
Ammonia emissions from dairy drylots where heifers and calves are housed are
calculated by determining the amount of nitrogen in the manure excreted at the drylot using
Equation A-8.
Nitrogen Excreteddrylot (Ib / day) = (A_8)
Weight (Ib /head) x Nitrogenexcreted (Ib /day /1,000 Ib animal) x Number of Head
A-18
-------
For the flush dairy model farm (which has an equal number of heifers and calves), the amount of
nitrogen excreted at the drylot is:
= 550 Ib heifer/head x 0.31 Ib N /day /1000-lb x 429 head
+ 350 Ib calf/head x 0.27 Ib N/day /1000-Ib x 429 head
= 113.7 IbN/day
Using Equation A-9, the amount of nitrogen excreted at the drylot is multiplied by an emission
factor of 45 percent to determine the amount of nitrogen lost to runoff and air emissions.
Manure Nitrogenlost (Ib/day) = Nitrogen Excreted^^ x 0.45 (A-9)
= 113.7 IbN/day x 0.45
= 51.2 IbN/day
The amount of nitrogen emitted from the drylot as air emissions is determined using Equation A-
10. Given that the amount of nitrogen in runoff3 (Ib/year/head) = 3.69, the manure nitrogen
emitted from the drylot as air emissions is:
Nitrogen Emitted^^ (Ib/year/head) = (Manure Nitrogenlost x 365 —— x ) - Nitrogen Runoff^j (A-10)
year rdead
= (51.2 Ib N / day) x (365 days /year) x (l /1,430 head) - (3.69 Ib N /year/ head)
= 9.37 (IbN/year/head)
The emissions are converted to ammonia by multiplying by a conversion factor:
= (9.37 Ib N / year / head) x (17 NH3 /14 N)
= 11.38 IbNH,/year/head
2002. EPA. Cost Methodology Report for Animal Feeding Operations.
A-19
-------
House
Mature dairy cows are housed in freestall barns where 85 percent of their manure
is excreted. The remaining 15 percent of manure is excreted in the milking parlor. The emission
factor for nitrogen losses from a confinement barn is 17.9 percent, as shown in Table 2.1-4 of
this report. Equation A-l 1 is used to calculate the emission rate for confinement houses.
17 NIL
House Emission Rate (Ib/year/head) = Manure Nitrogen (Ib/year/head) x x Emission Factor (A-ll)
14 N
where:
Manure Nitrogen (Ib/year/head)
1,350 Ibs/head x 0.45 Ibs N/day 365 days „ „,
1,000 Ibs year
= 188.5 Ibs N/year/head
The House Emission Rate, converted to pounds of ammonia per head per year is:
= (188.5 Ib N/year/head) x(l7NH3/14N) x 0.179
|= 40.97 IbNiy year /head|
Lagoons
The manure from the freestall barns is flushed and the wastewater along with the
waste from the milking parlor are stored and managed in an anaerobic lagoon. Equation A-12 is
used to calculate the ammonia emission rate for lagoons with solids separation in place,
assuming 88 percent of the nitrogen from the separator enters the lagoon and 43.6 percent of the
nitrogen in the lagoon is emitted as ammonia, where Ninput equals waste entering the solids
separator.
17 NIL
Lagoon Emission Rate^ separator (Ib/year/head) = Nlagoon (Ib/year/head) x 0.436 x ——1 (A-12)
The amount of nitrogen entering the lagoon is calculated using Equation A-13, where the amount
of nitrogen in runoff4 (Ib / year / head) is equal to 3.69 .
Niagoon (Ib/year/head) = [Nmput + Runoff] (Ib/year/head) (A-13)
Ninput is calculated using Equation A-14.
TN - N + N 1
-KT _ L excreted, barn emitted, barn excreted, milk parlor J
mput Number Head
2002. EPA. Cost Methodology Report for Animal Feeding Operations.
A-20
-------
738.4 IbsN/day - 132.2 Ibs N/day + 130.3 Ibs N day 365 days
X
1,430 head mature cows year
= 188.0 Ibs N /year/head
ERG assumes that 12 percent of the input nitrogen is separated by the solids
separator and 88 percent goes to the lagoon. Therefore, using Equation A-13, Nlagoon (Ib
N/vear/head") is eaual to:
N/year/head) is equal to
= 188.0 Ib N/year/head x 0.88 + 3.69 Ib N / year / head
= 169.13 IbN /yr/head
Using Equation A-12 the Lagoon Emission Rate is calculated as follows:
= (169.13 Ib N / year / head) x (0.436) x (17 NH3 /14 N)
|= 89.55 lbNH3/ year /head|
Stockpile
Equation A-15 is used to calculate the ammonia emission rate from stockpiles
with solids separation. The 12 percent removal factor is based on the assumption that 12 percent
of nitrogen in manure is removed with solids during solids separation. Stockpile emission rates
are based on information obtained in a literature review. The stockpile ammonia emission rate is
based on information from a literature review5, which indicates that 20 to 40 percent of nitrogen
is lost from solids manure storage. For this analysis, an emission factor of 20 percent was used.
Stockpile Emission Rate (Ib / year /head) = Nstockplle (Ib/year/head) x 0.20 x 3 (A-15)
where:
Nstockpiie (lbs/Year/head) = N input x 0.12
Sutton, A.L., D.D. Jones, B.C. Joern, and D.M. Huber. 2001. Animal Manure as a Plant
Resource. http://www.agcom.purdue.edu/AgCom/Pubs/ID/ID-101.html. Purdue University. West Lafayette, IN.
A-21
-------
Using Equation A-15, the Stockpile Emissions Factor (Ibs NH3/year/head) is:
= (22.56 Ib N / year / head) x (0.20) x (17 NH3 /14 N)
|=5.481bNH3/year/head
Model Farm Emissions
The model farm emissions are calculated as the sum of the emissions for each
manure management component per head multiplied by the average number of head at the model
farm using Equation A-16. For this example, the emission per model farm with solids separation
includes emissions from the drylot, barn, lagoon and stockpile.
„ . . ,. , , „ v Emissions Average Head
Emissions per Model Farm = 2-, X (A-16)
Head Model Farm
Using Equation A-16, the model farm emissions for a Flush Dairy, Central, Large 1 operation
with solids separation are:
((11.38 + 40.97 + 89.55 + 5.48) Ibs NH 3 / year / head)
2,000 Ibs/ton
x 1,430 head
= 105.4 tons NH 3 / year
A.2.1.2 Flush Dairy without Solids Separation
When solids separation technology is not in place, drylot and house emissions
rates are the same as those in flush dairies with solids separation. However, the emissions rate for
lagoons is different because all from the barn and parlor are flushed to the lagoon, as shown
below. Note that stockpiles are not a component of flush dairies without solids separation.
Lagoons
Equation A-17 is used to calculate the ammonia emissions factor for lagoons
where solids separation is not in place.
Lagoon Emission Ratewithoutsepiiriltor (Ib / year /head) = Nlagoon (Ib/year / head) x 0.436 x 14 N ' (A-17)
Using Equation A-13:
N lagoon (Ibs N /year /head) = [188.0 + 3.69] (Ibs N/year / head)
= 191.69 Ib N /year/head
A-22
-------
Using Equation A-17, the Lagoon Emissions Rate (Ibs NH3/year/head) =
= (191.69 IbN/year/head) x (0.436) x(l7NH3/14N)
|= 101.481bNH3/year/head|
Model Farm
Using Equation A-16, the emissions per model farm where solids separation is not
in place includes emissions from the drylot, barn, and lagoon.
_ ((11.38 + 40.97 + 101.48)lbsNH3/year/head)
2,000 Ibs/ton
= 109.9 tons NH3/year
x 1,430 head
Total Baseline Emissions for Large Dairy Flush Operations
The emission rate for the industry is calculated as the emission per model farm
multiplied by the number of facilities. Because this example includes both model farms with
solids separation and those without, frequency factors are included in this calculation. It is
assumed that 33 percent of the flush dairy operations have solid separators and that 67 percent do
not.
= (105.4 tons/year x 0.33 x 301 dairy flush facilities) +
(109.9 tons/year x (1 - 0.33) x 301 dairy Hush facilities)
= 32,633 tonsNH3 /year
A.2.2 Emissions for Options 1-4, 6 and 7
Under Options 1-4, 6 and 7, it is assumed that all operations have solids
separation in place. Therefore, the emission per model farm is identical to that calculated in the
flush dairy with solids separation baseline calculation. However, the total industry emissions
calculation is different from baseline because model farms without solids separation are not
included and frequency factors are not applied.
Total Emissions for Options 1-4. 6.1 for Large Dairy Flush Operations
= 105.4 tons/year X 301 facilities
= 31,725 tonsNH3 /year
A.2.3 Emissions for Option 5A
Option 5A assumes that all solids removed by solids separation or scraped from
the drylot are composted. The nitrogen remaining on the drylot is 55 percent of the nitrogen
excreted. The drylot, confinement house, and lagoon portions of this calculation are the same as
A-23
-------
those for flush dairies with solids separation at baseline as shown in Equation A-18. It is
assumed that 30 percent of the nitrogen in the compost is emitted as ammonia.6
Compost
Compost Emission Rate (Ib /year /head) = Ncompost (Ib/year/head) x 0.30 x (A-18;
where:
Ncompost(lbsN/year/head) = Nmput x 0.12 + (N drylot x 365 days/year x 1 /1430 head) x 0.55
= (188.0 Ib/year/head x 0.12) + (29.0 Ib N / year / head x 0.55)
= 38.5 Ib N / year / head
Using Equation A-18, the Compost Emissions Rate (Ibs NH3/year/head) =
= (38.5 Ib N / year / head) x (0.30) x (17 NH3 /14 N)
|= 14.03 lbNH3/ year /head|
Total Model Farm Emissions for Option 5A
Using Equation A-16, the model farm emissions for Option 5 A include emissions
from the drylot, barn, lagoon, and compost pile.
_ ((11.38 + 40.97 + 89.55 + 14.03) Ibs NH 3 / year / head)
~ 2,000 Ibs/ton
= 111.4 tons NH3 / year
x 1,430 head
Total Option 5A Emissions for Large Dairy Flush Operations
The industry emission rate is the product of the emission per model farm and the
number of facilities:
= 111.4 tons/year x 301 facilities
= 33,519 tonsNH3/year
A.3 Example Hydrogen Sulfide Calculation
This example presents the calculations of annual model farm emissions of
hydrogen sulfide from a Flush Dairy, Central, Large 1 operation (1,430 mature cows, 429 heifers,
429 calves). For the reasons discussed in Section 2.1, hydrogen sulfide emission rates are
6Eghball, B., J. Power, J. Gilley, and J. Doran. 1997. "Waste Management - Nutrient, Carbon,
and Mass Loss During Composting of Beef Cattle Feedlot Manure." Journal of Environmental Quality. Vol 26:
Pp. 189-193.
A-24
-------
assumed to be zero for all components except lagoons. Therefore, only the equations and
calculations for lagoons are presented in this appendix.
A.3.1 Baseline Emissions
The first calculation evaluates the emission rate from a lagoon for a flush dairy
with solids separation in place, and the second address a flush dairy without solids separation.
A.3.1.1 Flush Dairy with Solids Separation
Lagoon
It is assumed that the solids separator removes 50 percent of the waste and that
34.1 percent of the sulfur in the lagoon is converted to hydrogen sulfide as shown in Equation A-
19, where Sinput equals sulfur excreted in the barn and milking center.
17 H2S
16 S
Lagoon Emission Rateseparator (lb/ year /head) = Sinput (Ib /year / head) x 0.50 x 0.341 x i ^ o2 (A-19)
where:
Smput (lb S/year/head) =
98.51bsS/day 365 days
- - - x - —
1,430 head manure cows year
= 25.1 lb S / year / head
Therefore, the Lagoon Emission Rate (lb H2 S/year/head) is:
"17 H2S
= (25.1 lb S/year/head) x (0.50) x (0.341) x
16 S
^4~561bS/year/head|
Model Farm
Using Equation A-16, the model farm emission rate where solids separation is in
place is:
_ 4.60 Ibs H2S / year / head
2,000 Ibs/ton
= 3.26 tons H2S/year
A-25
x 1,430 head
-------
A.3.1.2 Flush Dairy without Solids Separation
Lagoon
The lagoon emission rate for a flush dairy without solids separation is calculated
using Equation A-20.
1 H U C
Lagoon Estimate Rate (sep) (Ib / year /head) = Sinput (Ib/year/head) x 0.341 x — (A-20)
1 D O
Therefore, the Lagoon Emission Rate (Ib H2S/year/head) =
17 H2S
= 25.1 Ibs S / year / head x 0.341 x
16 S
|=9.111bH2S/year/head|
Model Farm
Using Equation A-6, the model farm emission rate where solids separation is not
in place is:
9.11 Ibs H,S/year/head , ,
= — x 1,430 head
2,000 Ibs/ton
= 6.51 tons H2S /year
Total Baseline Emissions for Large Dairy Flush Operations
The emission rate for the industry is calculated as the emission per model farm
multiplied by the number of facilities. Because this example includes both model farms with
solids separation and those without, frequency factors are included in this calculation. It is
assumed that 33 percent of the dairy operations have solid separators and that 67 percent do not.
= (3.26 tons/year x 0.33 x 301 facilities) + (6.51 tons/year x (1 - 0.33) x 301 facilities)
= 1,637 tons H2S/year
A.3.2 Emissions for Options 1-7
For Options 1-7, it is assumed that all operations have solids separation in place.
Therefore, the total model farm emission rate is identical to that calculated in the flush dairy with
solids separation baseline calculation. However, the total industry emissions calculation is
A-26
-------
different from baseline because model farms without solids separation are not included and
frequency factors are not applied.
Total Emissions for Options 1-7 for Large Dairy Flush Operations.
= 3.26 tons/year x 301 facilities
= 990 tons H,S/year
A-27
-------
Appendix B
Detailed Calculations for Air Emissions from
Animal Confinement and Manure Management Systems -
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
-------
Introduction
Appendix B presents example calculations for methane and nitrous oxide
emissions from manure management systems. These calculations follow the methodology
presented in Section 2.2 of this report. All greenhouse gas emissions are reported in units of Tg-
CO2 equivalent, which normalizes all reported emissions to carbon dioxide. The greenhouse
warming potential of methane is 21 times that of carbon dioxide, whereas nitrous oxide is 310
times that of carbon dioxide.
Example Methane Calculation:
ERG calculates the annual model farm emissions for methane using Equations B-
1 through B-3, shown below. First, ERG uses Equation B-l to estimate the emissions per head
for each manure management component (e.g., drylot, pond, confinement house). Next, ERG
uses Equation B-2 to calculate weighted emissions based on the percent of operations that have
each component in place, and summed for all the components present at the model farm. Finally,
ERG uses Equation B-3 to calculate model farm emissions by multiplying the weighted
emissions per head by the average number of head at the model farm (presented in Section 1.0 of
the report).
VS excreted 365 days „ °-67 k§ CH4
= head per day X ~^~ X B° X m3 CH
4
Emission per Headmodel farm = £ Emission per Headcomponent x Frequency Factorcomponent (B-2)
T- • • UJ1T- T- • • TTJ Number of Head
Emission per Model Farm = Emission per Head d , f x (B-3)
Model Farm
This example presents the calculations of annual model farm emissions of methane from a Beef,
Central, Large 2 CAFOs.
Baseline Emissions
Based on the model farm definition for beef feedlots, all animals are housed on
drylots. For baseline, ERG estimates that all Large and 50 percent of Medium CAFOs have a
waste storage pond for the control of runoff. Using data provided by USD A, ERG further
estimates the type of waste management systems currently in place at baseline at Large and
Medium CAFOs that have "high," "medium," and "low" requirements. "High" requirements are
assigned to 25 percent of the operations, "medium" requirements are assigned to 50 percent of
the operations, and "low" requirements are assigned to 25 percent of the operations. These
B-l
-------
requirements are discussed in more detail in the cost methodology report.1 For Large beef
CAFOs, it is estimated that 60% of the farms with "low" requirements, 40% of the farms with
"medium" requirements, and 0% of the farms with "high" requirements have a settling basin in
place prior to the runoff pond. Therefore, emissions are calculated for three types of manure
management components: drylots, runoff ponds without solids separation, and runoff ponds with
solids separation.
Drylot Emissions (per head):
The methane emissions from the drylot are estimated using Equation B-l, where
B0 = 0.33 m3 CH4 / kg VS and the drylot MCF = 0.015.
5.44 kg/day VS v 398 kg v 365 days v °-33 m3 CH4 v °-67 kS CH4 ^
x --Q x j~ x
-4
1,000 kg head year kg VS m3 CH
= 2.62 kg CH4/yr/head
Pond without Settling Basin Emissions (per head):
To estimate emissions from a pond without solids separation, ERG estimated the
addition of volatile solids to the pond from runoff. From the cost methodology report, ERG
estimated that 2,242,228 kg/yr of solids are added to the pond from runoff from a Beef, Central,
Large 2 CAFO. Assuming the runoff solids have the same characteristics as manure, ERG first
estimated the amount of volatile solids added to the pond per head.
= 2,242,228 kg runoff solids/yr x model farm x year x 5.44 kg VS/day x 1,000 kg animal
model farm 25,897 head 365 days 1,000 kg animal 63 kg manure/day
= 0.02 kg VS/day/head
Next, the methane emissions from the pond are estimated using Equation B-l,
where B0 = 0.33 m3 CH4 / kg VS and the pond MCF = 0.29.
_ 0.02 kg VS/day 365 days °-33 m3 CH4 0.67 kg CH4
— X X X X \jt2,y
head year kg VS m3 CH4
= 0.479 kg CH4/yr/head
U.S. EPA. 2002a. Cost Methodology Report for Animal Feeding Operations. Washington, DC.
December 2002.
B-2
-------
Pond with Settling Basin Emissions (per head):
To estimate emissions from a pond with solids separation, ERG estimated the
addition of volatile solids to the pond from runoff following the solids separation step. From the
cost methodology report, ERG estimated that 2,242,228 kg/yr of solids are added to the settling
basin from runoff from a Beef, Central, Large 2 CAFO. Assuming the runoff solids have the
same characteristics as manure and the settling basin has a 50 percent efficiency, ERG estimates
the amount of volatile solids added to the pond per head and estimates the methane emissions
from the pond using Equation B-l, where B0 = 0.33 m3 CH4 / kg VS and the pond MCF = 0.29.
= 0.02 kg VS/day x Q 5Q efficiency x 365 days x ^ ^ CH4 x 0.67 kg CH4 x ^
head year kg VS m3 CH4
= 0.24 kg CH4/yr/head
Weighted Sum of Component Emissions
Using Equation B-2, ERG calculates the weighted average emissions per head for
the model farm. For a Beef, Central, Large 2 CAFO with "low" requirements, it is assumed that
all operations have a drylot and a waste storage pond in place. In addition, 60 percent of the
operations have a solids separator prior to the runoff pond.
Emission per Headmodel fc^ low = (Drylot x 100%) + (Pond w/out settling x 40%) + (Pond w/settling x 60%)
For our example calculation, the weighted emissions per head at a "low requirement" operation
are:
= (2.62 kg CH4/year x 100%) + (0.479 kg CH4/year x 40%) + (0.24 kg CH4/year x 60%)
= 2.96 kg CH4/year
The weighted emissions are calculated in a similar fashion for "medium" (3.05 kg CH4/yr) and
"high" (3.10 kg CH4/yr) requirement facilities. The overall weighted emission per head is
estimated as 25 percent of the "low" emission, 50 percent of the "medium" emission, and 25
percent of the "high" emission, or 3.04 kg CH4/yr.
Total Model Farm Emissions for Baseline
The model farm emissions are calculated as the weighted emissions per head
multiplied by the average number of head at the model farm.
~ . . ,, , , „ , Weighted Emissions Average Head
Emission per Model Farm, low = x s
Head Model Farm
B-3
-------
For our example calculation, the model farm emissions are:
= 3.04 kg CH4/year ^ 25,897 head
head Model Farm
= 78,702 kg CH4/year
Emissions for Regulatory Options 1-4 and 7
Under Options 1-4 and 7, it is assumed that all CAFOs have a waste storage pond
with settling basin in place. Therefore, when estimating total model farm emissions, the
frequency factor for CAFOs having a pond with settling basin is 100%, and the frequency factor
for CAFOs having a pond with no settling basin is 0%. The drylot portion of this calculation is
the same as baseline.
Weighted Sum of Component Emissions
Using Equation B-2, ERG calculates the weighted average emissions per head for
the model farm.
Emission per Headmodel farm = (Drylot x 100%) + (Pond w/out settling x 0%) + (Pond w/settling x 100%)
For our example calculation, the weighted emissions per head are:
= (2.62 kg CH4/year x 100%) + (0.479 kg CH4/year x o%) + (0.24 kg CH4/year x 100%)
= 2.86 kg CH4/year
Total Model Farm Emissions for Options 1-4. 7
The model farm emissions are calculated as the weighted emissions per head
multiplied by the average number of head at the model farm.
~ . . T., , , y. Weighted Emissions Average Head
Emission per Model Farm = x s
Head Model Farm
B-4
-------
For our example calculation, the model farm emissions are:
= 2.86 kg CH4/year ^ 25,897 head
head Model Farm
= 74,047 kg CH4/year
Emissions for Regulatory Option 5A
Option 5 A assumes that all solids removed by the settling basin and all solids
scraped from the drylot are composted. The drylot and pond with basin portions of this
calculation are the same as those for regulatory Options 1-4 and 7.
Compost Emissions (per head):
To estimate emissions from a compost pile, ERG estimated the addition of
volatile solids to the pile using data from literature. As discussed in Section 2.2 of this report,
ERG estimates that 564.6 pounds of volatile solids per ton of manure excreted is present in the
compost pile at a Beef, Central, Large 2 operation. ERG estimates the amount of volatile solids
added to the compost pile per head and estimates the methane emissions from the pond using
Equation B-l, where B0 = 0.33 m3 CH4 / kg VS and the compost MCF = 0.01.
44,200 tons manure compost/yr x 564.61 Ib VS to compost x kg x year x 1
model farm ton manure 2.20462 Ib 365 days 25,897 head
= 1.198 kg VS to compost/day/head
1.198 kg VS to compost/day 365 days 0.33 m3 CH4 0.67 kg CH4
— x x x
head year kg VS m3
= 0.966 kg CH /year/head
Weighted Sum of Component Emissions
Using Equation B-2, ERG calculates the weighted average emissions per head for
the model farm.
Emission per Headmodel farm = (Drylot x 100%) + (Compost x 100%) + (Pond w/settling x 100%)
B-5
-------
For our example calculation, the weighted emissions per head are:
= (2.62 kg CH4/year x 100%) + (0.966 kg CH4/year x 100%) + (0.24 kg CH4/year x 100%)
= 3.83 kg CH4/year
Total Model Farm Emissions for Option 5A
The model farm emissions are calculated as the weighted emissions per head
multiplied by the average number of head at the model farm.
~ . . ,, , , „ Weighted Emissions Average Head
Emission per Model Farm = x
Head Model Farm
For our example calculation, the model farm emissions are:
= 3.83 kg CH4/year ^ 25,897 head
head Model Farm
= 99,074 kg CH4/year
Industry-level results for each threshold considered are simply calculated as the
model farm results multiplied by the number of facilities (as defined in Section 1).
Example Nitrous Oxide Calculation:
ERG calculates the annual model farm emissions for nitrous oxide using
Equations B-2 through B-4. First, Equation B-4 is used to estimate the emissions per head for
each manure management component (e.g., drylot, pond, confinement house). Next, ERG uses
Equation B-2 to calculate weighted emissions based on the percent of operations that have each
component in place, and summed for all the components present at the model farm. Finally,
ERG calculates model farm emissions using Equation B-3 by multiplying the weighted emissions
per head by the average number of head at the model farm (presented in Section 1.0 of the
report).
N 44 N20
Emission per Head = x 365 days x EF x (B-4)
head 28 N
This example presents the calculations of annual model farm emissions of nitrous oxide from a
Beef, Central, Large 2 operation.
B-6
-------
Baseline Emissions
Based on the model farm definition for beef feedlots, all animals are housed on
drylots. For baseline, ERG estimates that all Large and 50 percent of Medium CAFOs have a
waste storage pond for the control of runoff. Using data provided by USD A, ERG further
estimates the type of waste management systems currently in place at baseline at Large and
Medium CAFOs that have "high," "medium," and "low" requirements. "High" requirements are
assigned to 25 percent of the operations, "medium" requirements are assigned to 50 percent of
the operations, and "low" requirements are assigned to 25 percent of the operations. These
requirements are discussed in more detail in the cost methodology report.2 For Large beef
CAFOs, it is estimated that 60% of the farms with "low" requirements, 40% of the farms with
"medium" requirements, and 0% of the farms with "high" requirements have a settling basin in
place prior to the runoff pond. Therefore, emissions are calculated for three types of manure
management components: drylots, runoff ponds without solids separation, and runoff ponds with
solids separation.
Drylot Emissions (per head):
The nitrous oxide emissions from the drylot are estimated using Equation B-4,
where the drylot EF = 0.02.
_ 0.34 kg/day Nex 398 kg 365 days v 44 N2° v n m
— x x x x \j \)2,
1,000 kg head year 28 N
= 1.55 kg/yr/head
Pond without Settling Basin Emissions (per head):
To estimate emissions from a pond without solids separation, ERG estimated the
addition of nitrogen to the pond from runoff. From the cost methodology report, ERG estimated
that 2,242,228 kg/yr of solids are added to the pond from runoff from a Beef, Central, Large 2
operation. Assuming the runoff solids have the same characteristics as manure, ERG first
estimated the amount of nitrogen added to the pond per head.
= 2,242,228 kg runoff solids/yr x model farm x year x 0.34 kg Nex/day x 1,000 kg animal
model farm 25,897 head 365 days 1,000 kg animal 63 kg manure/day
= 0.001 kg N/day/head
U.S. EPA. 2002a. Cost Methodology Report for Animal Feeding Operations. Washington, DC.
December.
B-7
-------
Next, the nitrous oxide emissions from the pond are estimated using Equation B-
4, where the pond EF = 0.001.
= 0.001 kg N/day x 365 days x 44 N2O ^
x x
head year 28 N
= 0.001 kg N2O/yr/head
Pond with Settling Basin Emissions (per head):
To estimate emissions from a pond with solids separation, ERG estimated the
addition of nitrogen to the pond from runoff following the solids separation step. From the cost
methodology report, ERG estimated that 3,693,549 kg/yr of solids are added to the settling basin
from runoff from a Beef, Central, Large 2 operation. Assuming the runoff solids have the same
characteristics as manure and the settling basin has a 50 percent efficiency, ERG estimates the
amount of nitrogen added to the pond per head and estimates the nitrous oxide emissions from
the pond using Equation B-l, where the pond EF = 0.001.
= °-001 kg N/d^ x 0.50 efficiency x 365 x x o.OOl
head year 28 N
= 0.0004 kg N2O/yr/head
Weighted Sum of Component Emissions
Using Equation B-2, ERG calculates the weighted average emissions per head for
the model farm. For a Beef, Central, Large 2 operation with "low" requirements, it is assumed
that all operations have a drylot and a waste storage pond in place. In addition, 60 percent of the
operations have a solids separator prior to the runoff pond.
Emission per Headmodel farm low
= (Drylot x 100%) + (Pond w/out settling x 40%) + (Pond w/settling x 60%)
For our example calculation, the weighted emissions per head at a "low requirement" operation
are:
= (1.55 kg N2O/year x 100%) + (0.001 kg N2O/year x 40%) + (0.0004 kg N2O/year x 60%)
= 1.55 kg N2O/year
The weighted emissions are calculated in a similar fashion for "medium" (1.55 kg N2O/yr) and
"high" (1.55 kg N2O/yr) requirement facilities. The overall weighted emission per head is
estimated as 25 percent of the "low" emission, 50 percent of the "medium" emission, and 25
percent of the "high" emission, or 1.55 kgN2O/yr.
B-8
-------
Total Model Farm Emissions for Baseline
The model farm emissions are calculated as the weighted emissions per head
multiplied by the average number of head at the model farm.
~ . . ,, , , „ , Weighted Emissions Average Head
Emission per Model Farm, low = x
Head Model Farm
For our example calculation, the model farm emissions are:
= 1.55 kg N2O/year ^ 25,897 head
head Model Farm
= 40,196 kg N2O/year
Emissions for Regulatory Options 1-4 and 7
Under Options 1-4 and 7, it is assumed that all operations have a waste storage
pond with settling basin in place. Therefore, when estimating total model farm emissions, the
frequency factor for operations having a pond with settling basin is 100%, and the frequency
factor for operations having a pond with no settling basin is 0%. The drylot portion of this
calculation is the same as baseline.
Weighted Sum of Component Emissions
Using Equation B-2, ERG calculates the weighted average emissions per head for
the model farm.
Emission per Headmodel farm = (Drylot x 100%) + (Pond w/out settling x o%) + (Pond w/settling x 100%)
For our example calculation, the weighted emissions per head are:
= (1.55 kg N2O/year x 100%) + (0.001 kg N2O/year x o%) + (0.0004 kg N2O/year x 100%)
= 1.55 kg N2O/year
Total Model Farm Emissions for Options 1-4. 7
The model farm emissions are calculated as the weighted emissions per head
multiplied by the average number of head at the model farm.
~ . . ,, , , ~ Weighted Emissions Average Head
Emission per Model Farm = 2 x s.
Head Model Farm
B-9
-------
For our example calculation, the model farm emissions are:
= 1.55 kg N2O/year ^ 25,897 head
head Model Farm
= 40,189 kg N2O/year
Emissions for Regulatory Option 5A
Option 5 A assumes that all solids removed by the settling basin and all solids
scraped from the drylot are composted. The drylot and pond with basin portions of this
calculation are the same as those for regulatory options 1-4 and 7.
Compost Emissions (per head):
To estimate emissions from a compost pile, ERG estimated the addition of
nitrogen to the pile using data from literature. As discussed in Section 2.2 of this report, ERG
estimates that 25.71 pounds of nitrogen per ton of manure excreted is present in the compost pile
at a Beef, Central, Large 2 operation. ERG estimates the amount of nitrogen added to the
compost pile per head and estimates the nitrous oxide emissions from the pond using Equation
B-4, where the compost EF = 0.02.
44,200 tons manure compost/yr 25.71 Ib N to compost kg year 1
model farm ton manure 2.20462 Ib 365 days 25,897 head
= 0.055 kg N to compost/day/head
= 0.055 kg N to compost/day x 365 days x 44 N2° x Q
head year 28 N
= 0.63 kg N2O/year/head
Weighted Sum of Component Emissions
Using Equation B-2, ERG calculates the weighted average emissions per head for
the model farm.
Emission per Headmodel farm = (Drylot x 100%) + (Compost x 100%) + (Pond w/settling x 100%)
B-10
-------
For our example calculation, the weighted emissions per head are:
= (1.55 kg N2O/year x 100%) + (0.63 kg N2O/year x 100%) + (0.0004 kg N2O/year x 100%)
= 2.18 kg N2O/year
Total Model Farm Emissions for Option 5A
The model farm emissions are calculated as the weighted emissions per head
multiplied by the average number of head at the model farm.
~ . . ,, , , „ Weighted Emissions Average Head
Emission per Model Farm = x
Head Model Farm
For our example calculation, the model farm emissions are:
2.18 kg N2O/year 25,897 head
= x —
head Model Farm
= 56,400 kg N2O/year
Industry-level results for each threshold considered are simply calculated as the
model farm results multiplied by the number of facilities (as defined in Section 1).
B-ll
-------
Appendix C
Detailed Calculations for Air Emissions from Animal Confinement and Manure
Management Systems - Energy Recovery Systems
-------
Introduction
Appendix C presents an example calculation for emissions of nitrogen oxides
(NOX), sulfur dioxide (SO2), and carbon monoxide (CO),from energy recovery systems used at
animal feeding operations. This appendix supplements the text presented in Section 2.3 of this
report.
Assumptions Used in Calculations
ERG made the following assumptions to calculate emissions from energy
recovery systems:
• Under Option 6, the biogas is sent to an engine for recovery. It is assumed
that 70 percent of the biogas is methane1'2 and 30 percent of the biogas is
carbon dioxide;
• The methane is used in an engine to generate electricity, with a 100
percent rate of conversion of methane to electricity; and
• Total nitrogen into the digester or covered lagoon is also discharged from
the digester or covered lagoon into the holding pond or secondary lagoon
(that is, ammonia is not volatilized into the gas collection system and sent
to the energy recovery system).
For dairies, emissions for flush and hose/scrape dairies are calculated separately.
Then, the two types of operations are combined into a single model farm in Table C-3 using
farm-type frequency factors (presented in Appendix A). These factors provide the percentage of
operations in that model farm group that are flush operations verses hose operations, and the
emissions are weighted according to these factors. For further description of the farm-type
factors, see the Cost Methodology Report for Animal Feeding Operations.3
Jones, D., J. Nye, and A. Dale. 2000. Methane Generation From Livestock Waste.
. (November)
2Schultz, T. and C. Collar. 1993. Dairying and Air Emissions. In: Dairy Manure Management
Series. University of California.
EPA. 2002a. Cost Methodology Report for Animal Feeding Operations. Washington, DC.
December 2002.
C-l
-------
Biogas Calculation Example:
Using Equation C-l, a total volume of biogas is calculated from the methane mass
values by converting to a volumetric flow basis using the ideal gas law at standard temperature
and pressure.
Model Farm Data (from Section 1):
Farm Type: Farrow-to-finish swine
Size: Large 2 (17,118 head)
Region: Mid- Atlantic
Methane Generation: 451,930kg/yr
PV =nRT (C-l)
where:
P = pressure = 1.01325 x 10s Pa
R = gas law constant =8.314 (m3 x Pa)/ (mol x K)
T = temperature = 293 K
n = moles of gas = (mCH4/MWCH4) x 1000
mcH4 = methane mass generation value from OW calculation (kg/yr)
MWCH4 = methane molecular weight =16 g/mol
For the farm listed, the methane volume (VCH4) is calculated as follows using Equation C-l :
1.01325xl05 XVCH4 =| 45; x1,000x8.314 X293
^ 16 )
VCH4 = 679,066 m3/yr
Total volume of biogas (Vbio) generated and collected is calculated using Equation
C-2.
VCH4 = 0.70xVbio (C-2)
Therefore,
Vbio= 679,066 -H 0.7 = 970,094 m3/yr
C-2
-------
SO2 Calculation Example:
From data presented in available literature, it is assumed that 0.36 percent by
volume of the biogas was hydrogen sulfide (H2S). The H2S volume (Vms) is calculated using
Equation C-3 :
VH2s = Vbiox 0.0036 (C-3)
Therefore,
Vms = 679,066 x 0.0036 = 3,492.3 m3/yr
Based on AP-42 data, all the H2S in the biogas will be completely oxidized into SO2 in either a
flare or a gas turbine. Equation C-4 gives the calculation used to estimate SO2.
PxVH2SxMWH2S MWS02
m = - ^ - m^ - ^22_ \
RxTxlOOO MWH2S
where:
mso2 = mass of SO2 emitted (kg/yr)
MWms = molecular weight of H2S = 34 g/mol
MWS02 = molecular weight of SO2 = 64 g/mol.
Annual SO2 emissions are therefore calculated as:
1.01325xl05 X3492.3X34 64
ms02 = - X — = 9,306
8.314X293X1000 34
CO Calculation Example:
Emission factors for landfill gas combustion are given in AP-42. Since CAFO
biogas emission factors are unavailable and that the CAFO biogas is mostly composed of
methane, the landfill gas factors are used in calculating CO and thermal NOx generation.
Equation C-5 is used to calculate CO emissions.
EF 1
mCO =VCH4 xCVoi XT7^XT (C-5)
where:
mco = mass of CO emitted (kg/yr)
Cvol = volume conversion factor = 35.314 ft3/m3
EF = emission factor = 750 Ibs CO / million ft3 CH4 combusted (flaring)
Cmass = mass conversion factor = 2.2 Ib/kg.
C-3
-------
Therefore, for the flare case,
mco = 679,066 x 35.314 x 750 - (1,000,000 x 2.2) = 8,175 kg/yr
Thermal NOx Calculation:
Thermal NOx is also calculated using AP-42 combustion emission factors.
Equation C-5 is also used to calculate thermal NOx, with the following modifications:
Replace mco with mtNQx = mass of thermal NOx emitted (kg/yr); and
Emission factors for NOx are used instead of CO (for flare, EF = 40 Ibs
NOx/ million ft3 CH4 combusted).
Therefore, the resulting calculation is:
mtNOx = 679,066 x 35.314 x 40 - (1,000,000 x 2.2) = 436 kg/yr
Fuel NOx Calculation:
This is calculated in a manner very similar to that used to estimate SO2 emissions.
Equation C-3 is used to calculate the volumetric flow rate of NH3 (V^) in the biogas. A
literature review revealed that biogas from animal operations contains 1.67 percent NH3 by
volume. Therefore, substituting into C-3 results in the following:
VNH3 = Vbiox 0.0167
= 970,094 x 0.0167 = 16,200 m3/yr
Substituting into Equation C-4, accounting for different molecular weights and
assuming that only 30 percent of the NH3 is converted to NOx (from literature search), Equation
C-6 is obtained for estimating annual fuel NOx emissions.
= PxVNH3xMWNH3xMWNOXx03
RxTxlOOO MWNH3
where:
mfNox = annual fuel NOx emissions (kg/yr)
MWNU3 = molecular weight of NH3 =17 g/mol
MWNOx = molecular weight of NOx (as N2O) = 44 g/mol
C-4
-------
The resultant emission calculation is:
1.01325xl05xl6200xl7 44_
mfNox- 8.314x293x1000 X 17 X '
Total NOx:
The total annual NOx emission (mNQx) is simply the sum of thermal and fuel NOx
emissions. In this example, total NOx is:
mNOx ~~ mtNOx mfNOx
= 436 + 8,895 = 9,331 kg/yr
Results
The volume of biogas and the engine emissions generated at each model farm are
presented in section 2.3 of the text in Tables 2.3-2 through 2.3-5.
C-5
-------
Appendix D
Detailed Calculations for Air Emissions - Land Application Activities
-------
Introduction
Appendix D presents example calculations for ammonia and nitrous oxide
emissions from the land application of solid and liquid waste, both on site and off site. These
calculations follow the methodology presented in Section 3 of this report. All ammonia
emissions are reported in units of tons per year. All nitrous oxide emissions are reported in units
of Tg-CO2 equivalent, which normalizes the reported emissions of greenhouse gases to carbon
dioxide. The greenhouse warming potential of nitrous oxide is 310 times that of carbon dioxide.
ERG calculates the annual industry level pounds of liquid and solid nitrogen being
applied on and off site, at baseline and under the different regulatory options, using nitrogen data
from the cost model.1 The cost model multiplies the amount of nitrogen going to land
application for each model farm by the appropriate number of facilities (broken out by size
group; region; category; and high, medium, and low requirement operations. Under Option 1 the
cost model assumes that all facilities apply their nitrogen agronomically using a nitrogen-based
application rate. Under Options 2-7, the cost model distinguishes between facilities that
agronomically apply their nitrogen using a nitrogen-based application rate and those using a
phosphorous based-application rate. At baseline, the cost model uses a frequency factor to
account for both Category 2 facilities that over apply their nitrogen and Category 2 facilities that
apply their nitrogen agronomically using a nitrogen-based application rate.
Example Calculation:
ERG calculates the total liquid and solid nitrogen going to on-site and off-site
land application for each animal type by summing the nitrogen from the cost model for each size
group; region; category; and high, medium, and low requirement operations. These totals are
presented in Table 3.1-2. EPA then calculates the total ammonia emissions that occur both on
site and off site for each animal type using the data in Table 3.1-2, Equations D-l and D-2, and
the animal-specific ammonia volatilization rates presented in Table 3.2-1.
NH3 Emissionson_slte = (Solid Non_site x % VolatilizationSolid) + (Liquid Non_site x % Volatilization^) (D-l)
NH3 Emissionsoff_slte = (Solid Noff_site x % VolatilizationSolid) + (Liquid Noff_site x % VolatilizationLiqmd) (D-2)
ERG then calculates the total nitrous oxide emissions that occur both on site and off site for each
animal type using Equations D-3 and D-4 and the animal-specific ammonia volatilization rates
presented in Table 3.2-1. This methodology assumes that one percent of the nitrogen that
volatilizes as ammonia eventually becomes nitrous oxide, and 1.25 percent of the nitrogen that is
land applied but does not volatilize to ammonia will be emitted as nitrous oxide. Equation D-5 is
U.S. EPA. 2002a. Cost Methodology Report for Animal Feeding Operations. Washington, DC.
December 2002.
D-l
-------
used to convert the units of nitrous oxide emissions from pounds per year to Tg-CO2 equivalent
per year.
N20 Emissionson site =
[(% Volatilizationsolid x Solidon site) + (% VolatilizationLiqmd x Liquidon site)] x 0.01 +
[(1 - % Volatilizationsolid) x Solidon site] + [(1 - % Volatilization^) x Liquidon site] x 0.0125 (D-3)
44 N2O
28 N2
N2O Emissionsoff site =
[(% Volatilizationsolid x Solidoff site) + (% VolatilizationLiqmd x Liquidoff site)] x o.Ol +
[(1 - % Volatilizationsolid) x Solidoff site] + [(1 - % Volatilization^) x Liquidoff site] x 0.0125 (D-4)
44 N,O
X _
28 N9
Z
N2O Emissions (Tg-CO2 Equivalent/yr) = N2O Emissions (Ib/yr) ^ 2.2 Ib/kg ^ 109 kg/Tg x 310 (D-5)
For example, the calculations of annual emissions of ammonia and nitrous oxide from beef
CAFOs are shown below.
Baseline Emissions
At baseline it is assumed that some Category 2 facilities over apply their waste on
site and some Category 2 facilities apply their waste agronomically using a nitrogen-based
application rate. Category 1 facilities apply all of their waste on site, and Category 3 facilities
apply all of their waste off site.
D-2
-------
Ammonia
The on-site and off-site ammonia emissions from land application are estimated
using Equations D-l and D-2, where the pounds of nitrogen applied are presented in Table 3.1-2
(119,360,643 pounds solid nitrogen and 35,053,523 pounds liquid nitrogen are applied on site;
261,574,770 pounds solid nitrogen and 18,753,422 pounds liquid nitrogen are applied off site)
and the percent nitrogen volatilization rates are presented in Table 3.2-1 (solid nitrogen
volatilization =17 percent and liquid nitrogen volatilization = 20 percent). For example, for beef
CAFOs, the on-site ammonia emissions are:
= [(119,360,643 Ib/yr x 0.17) + (35,053,523 Ib/yr x 0.20)] - 2,000 Ib/ton
= 13,651 tons/yr
The off-site ammonia emissions are:
= (261,574,770 Ib/yr x 0.17) + (18,753,422 Ib/yr x 0.20) - 2,000 Ib/ton
= 24,109 tons/yr
Nitrous Oxide
The on site and off site nitrous oxide emissions from land application are
estimated using Equations D-3 through D-5, where the pounds of nitrogen applied are presented
in Table 3.1-2 (119,360,643 pounds solid nitrogen and 35,053,523 pounds liquid nitrogen are
applied on site; 261,574,770 pounds solid nitrogen and 18,753,422 pounds liquid nitrogen are
applied off site) and the percent nitrogen volatilization rates are presented in Table 3.2-1 (solid
nitrogen volatilization =17 percent and liquid nitrogen volatilization = 20 percent). For
example, for the beef industry, the on-site nitrous oxide emissions are:
= [(0.17 x 119,360,643 Ib/yr + 0.20 x 35,053,523 Ib/yr) x o.Ol +
[(1 - 0.17) x 119,360,643 Ib/yr + (1 - 0.20) x 35,053,523 Ib/yr] x 0.0125] x ±L
28
= 2,925,877 Ib/yr
The off-site nitrous oxide emissions are:
= [(0.17 x 261,574,770 Ib/yr + 0.20 x 18,753,422 Ib/yr) x 0.01 +
[(1 - 0.17) x 261,574,770 Ib/yr + (1 - 0.20) x 18,753,422 Ib/yr] x 0.0125] x ii
28
= 5,317,017 Ib/yr
D-3
-------
Emissions Under Regulatory Options 1 through 7
The calculation of ammonia and nitrous oxide emissions under the different
regulatory options use the same methodology as described for baseline, using Equations Dl
through D5, the data inputs for the liquid and solid pounds of nitrogen applied on site and off site
under the different regulatory options presented in Table 3.1-2, and the animal-specific ammonia
volatilization rates presented in Table 3.2-1. The pounds of nitrogen going to land application
differs by regulatory option, as described below.
Emissions for Regulatory Option 1
Under Option 1 all facilities apply their nitrogen agronomically using a nitrogen-
based application rate. Because no Category 2 facilities over apply their waste on site (all
facilities use a nitrogen-based application rate), the distribution of pounds of nitrogen being
applied on site and off site (and therefore, the distribution of emissions that occur on site and off
site) differ from baseline.
Emissions for Regulatory Options 2-4. 6. and 7
Under Options 2 through 4, 6, and 7 all facilities apply their nitrogen
agronomically using a nitrogen-based application rate or a phosphorus-based application rate.
Because no Category 2 facilities over apply their waste on site (all facilities use either a nitrogen-
based application rate or a phosphorus-based application rate), the distribution of pounds of
nitrogen being applied on site and off site (and therefore, the distribution of emissions that occur
on site and off site) differ from baseline and Option 1.
Emissions for Regulatory Option 5 A
Under Option 5 A all facilities apply their nitrogen agronomically using a nitrogen-
based application rate or a phosphorus-based application rate (the same as Options 2 through 4,
6, and 7). Because the solid waste is composted before land application under Option 5 A, the
nitrogen going to land application is in a more stable form, and the percent of solid nitrogen
expected to volatilize to ammonia decreases from 17 percent to 2 percent.
D-4
-------
Appendix E
Detailed Calculations for Emissions from Vehicles - Off-Site Transportation
-------
Introduction
Appendix E presents example calculations for volatile organic compounds,
nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide and particulate matter emissions from the transportation of
solid and liquid waste off site. These calculations follow the methodology presented in Section 4
of this report. All criteria air emissions are presented in units of tons per year.
ERG calculates the annual industry level pounds of liquid and solid manure being
transported off site under the different regulatory options, using manure data from the cost
model.1 As described in Section 4 of the report, there are four potential methods of transporting
the manure off site, and the cost model is designed to select the most cost effective method for
each operation. The output from the cost model includes the method of transport selected for
each operation and the industry level miles traveled while transporting the liquid waste and solid
waste off site (broken out by size group; region; high, medium and low requirement operations;
and Category 1, Category 2 and Category 3 operations).
Example Calculation:
ERG calculates the total incremental miles traveled above baseline transporting
solid manure and liquid manure off site for each animal type under the regulatory options by
summing the mileages from the cost model for each size group; each region; high, medium, and
low requirement operations; and Category 1, Category 2, and Category 3 operations. These data
inputs are presented in Table 4.1-2. ERG then calculates the total incremental volatile organic
compounds, nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide, and particulate matter emissions that occur
above baseline while transporting solid and liquid manure off site for each animal type under the
different regulatory options. Equation E-l is the general equation used to estimate the criteria air
emissions, using the total additional miles traveled above baseline data presented in Table 4.1-2
and the emission factors for diesel vehicles presented in Table 4.1-1.
Total Pollutant Emitted (tons) =
(MilesSolid x Pollutant EFSoUd (grams/mi)) + (MilesLiqmd x Pollutant EFLiquid (grams/mi)) (E-l)
454 grams/pound x 2000 pounds/ton
The following example presents the calculations of the additional annual criteria
air emissions from baseline to Option 1 for the dairy CAFOs.
Emissions Above Baseline - Option 1
The increase in criteria air emissions above baseline are calculated using Equation
E-l, the additional miles traveled from baseline calculated for Option 1 presented in Table 4.1-2
of the NWQI report (959,068 miles hauling solid manure; 27,757,298 miles hauling liquid
manure), and the transportation emission factors presented in Table 4.1-1. The resulting
U.S. EPA. 2002a. Cost Methodology Report for Animal Feeding Operations. Washington, DC.
December.
E-l
-------
transportation emissions are presented in Section 4 of the NWQI report, in Tables 4.1-3 through
4.1-6.
Volatile Organic Carbon Emissions (tons/yr)
Total VOCs Emitted (tons/yr)
(959,068 solid miles x 1.08 grams/mile) + (27,757,298 liquid miles x 1.35 grams/mile)
(454 grams/pound) x (2000 pounds/ton)
= 45.5 tons/yr
Nitrogen Oxides Emissions (tons/yr)
Total Nitrogen Oxides Emitted (tons/yr)
_ (959,068 solid miles x 23.67 grams/mile) + (27,757,298 liquid miles x 27.6 grams/mile)
(454 grams/pound) x (2000 pounds/ton)
= 868.7 tons/yr
Carbon Monoxide Emissions (tons/yr)
Total Carbon Monoxide Emitted (tons/yr)
(959,068 solid miles x 5.87 grams/mile) + (27,757,298 liquid miles x 7.83 grams/mile)
(454 grams/pound) x (2000 pounds/ton)
= 245.6 tons/yr
Particulate Matter Emissions (tons/vr)
Total Particulate Matter Emitted (tons/yr)
= (959,068 solid miles x Q.857 grams/mile) + (27,757,298 liquid miles x Q.857 grams/mile)
(454 grams/pound) x (2000 pounds/ton)
= 27.1 tons/yr
Emissions Under Options 1-7
At baseline it is assumed that some Category 2 facilities over apply their waste on
site and some Category 2 facilities apply their waste agronomically using a nitrogen-based
application rate. However, under the different regulatory options it is assumed that all facilities
(including Category 2 facilities) apply their waste agronomically using either a nitrogen-based or
phosphorus-based application rate. Therefore, the Category 2 facilities that over applied their
waste at baseline now apply at an agronomic rate, and have more manure to transport off site.
E-2
-------
The transportation of this excess manure off site results in more miles being traveled and more
criteria air emissions.
Although Category 3 facilities transport all of their manure off site at baseline, a
regulation that requires phosphorous-based application may cause facilities to transport their
manure a further distance; therefore, there may also be an increase in the amount of criteria air
pollutants generated by these operations.
The criteria air emissions generated under each regulatory option are directly
dependent on the miles traveled to transport the manure off site, and the number of miles traveled
are directly dependent on the quantity of manure that needs to be transported off site There is an
increase in emissions from baseline to Option 1, as shown in the example above, because
Category 2 facilities no longer over apply their manure, resulting in a reduced on-site application
rate and therefore more manure transported off site. There is an even greater increase in
emissions from baseline to Options 2-4, 7 because some facilities apply their manure using a
phosphorous-based application rate, resulting in an even more reduced on-site application rate
and therefore more manure transported off site. The increase in emissions from baseline to
Option 5 A is not quite as great as it is for Options 2-4, 7 because the volume of manure going to
land application is slightly reduced during composting. The increase in emissions from baseline
to Option 6 is relatively small because the manure is first sent to an anaerobic digester.
E-3
-------
Appendix F
Detailed Calculations for Emissions from Vehicles Used for Composting
-------
Introduction
Appendix F presents an example of the calculations used to estimate the criteria
air emissions (VOCs, NOx, PM, and CO) from vehicles used for composting. These calculations
follow the methodology presented in Section 4.2 of this report.
Data Inputs
Tables 4.1-1 and 4.2-1 contain the data inputs used to calculate the criteria air
emissions from vehicles used for composting. Table 4.1-1 presents emission factors for fleet
vehicles from MOBILE61 and AP-42.2 Table 4.2-1 presents the number of miles traveled during
on-site composting calculated by the cost model.3
Assumptions
Criteria air emissions resulting from composting activities are calculated for
Option 5A beef, dairy, and heifer CAFOs. ERG assumes that farms do not compost in the
baseline scenario; therefore, all emissions listed in Table 4.2-2 represent post-regulatory
emissions. Emissions are calculated for the composting of all solids generated on site. It is
assumed that the tractor used to turn the compost pile is the only source of criteria air emissions.
Section 4.2 of this report summarizes the methodology used to estimate the annual
running time of the tractor used to turn the manure. The annual criteria air emissions from
composting operations are determined using the data inputs from Tables 4.1-1 and 4.2-1 and
Equation F-l.
Total Pollutant Emitted (tons/yr)
Total Miles (miles/yr) * Pollutant Emision Factor (grams/miles) [F~l]
(454 grams/pound) x (2000 pounds/ton)
The following example calculations use the industry miles traveled data calculated for beef
CAFOs (91,172 miles), presented in Table 4.2-1. The miles traveled data for beef, heifer, and
dairy CAFOs are presented in this table.
Hj.S. EPA. 2002. Mobile 6 Vehicle Emission Modeling Software.
http ://www. epa. gov/otaq/m6. htm#m60.
2U.S. EPA. 1985. Compilation of Air Pollution Emission Factors, 4th ed. AP-42. Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina.
U.S. EPA. 2002a. Cost Methodology Report for Animal Feeding Operations. Washington, DC.
December 2002.
F-l
-------
Volatile Organic Carbon Emissions (tons/vr)
Total VOCs Emitted (tons/yr) = 91,172 (miles) x 1.Q8 (grams/mile) = Q 1Qg ( }
(454 grams/pound) x (2000 pounds/ton)
Nitrogen Oxides Emissions (tons/yr)
^ t i XTV /-> -j T- -^ j ^ / x 91.172 (solid miles) x 23.67 (grams/mile) ~ ___ ... , ,
Total Nitrogen Oxides Emitted (tons/yr) = — - - ^ '- = 2.377 (tons/yr)
(454 grams/pound) x (2000 pounds/ton)
Carbon Monoxide Emissions (tons/yr)
^ t i ^ u A* -j T- -^ j /* / x 91.172 (solid miles) x 5.87 (grams/mile) „ ,„„ ... , ,
Total Carbon Monoxide Emitted (tons/yr) = — ^ '- ^ = 0.589 (tons/yr)
(454 grams/pound) x (2000 pounds/ton)
Particulate Matter Emissions (tons/yr)
T. * i n _*• i * HT ^ T- -^ j /* / x 91.172 (solid miles) x 0.857 (grams/mile) „ „„, ... , ,
Total Particulate Matter Emitted (tons/yr) = — ^ '- ^ '- = 0.086 (tons/yr)
(454 grams/pound) x (2000 pounds/ton)
F-2
-------
Appendix G
Detailed Calculations for Energy Impacts - Land Application
-------
Introduction
Appendix G presents the derivation of the equations used to estimate energy
impacts from land application, approximated by the application of liquid waste using center pivot
or traveling gun irrigation. This appendix also includes a sample calculation, which follows the
methodology presented in Section 5.1 of this report. All operations are expected to conduct land
application/irrigation under the regulatory options. The greatest increase in electricity use is
expected for the Medium beef, heifer, and dairy CAFOs; no additional energy use is expected for
veal, swine, or poultry CAFOs under any regulatory option. The irrigated acres and frequency
factors for Category 1 and 2 facilities are determined from the cost model used to estimate
compliance costs for these operations.1
Center Pivot Irrigation
Farms with more than 30 acres available for liquid land application are assumed
to use center pivot irrigation systems. To determine the energy required to operate the system,
vendor data presented in Section 5.1 relating the irrigated acres to electrical energy and diesel
pump energy are plotted on a linear curve (Figure G-l) that is used to calculate the required
horsepower of the center pivot for each model farm.2'3'4 The equation for the curve has a
regression coefficient of 0.973.
y = 0.2695X +34.047
R2 = 0.973
200 300
A cr es
Figure G-l. Required Horsepower for Center Pivot Irrigation
Hj.S. EPA. 2002a. Cost Methodology Report for Animal Feeding Operations. Washington, DC. December 2002.
Zimmatic. 2000. Zimmatic System Configuration Economic Comparison Guide. .
January 6.
Kifco. 2001. Kifco "B" Series Performance Guide . November 2001.
4Caprari. 2002. Caprari Pumps Performance Data . May 2002.
G-l
-------
The annual model farm estimates for energy use of center pivot irrigation systems
are calculated using Figure G-l and Equations G-l and G-2. It is assumed that the irrigation
system is operated 1,000 hours per year. Therefore:
Required Horsepower (HP) = (0.2695 x Irrigated Acres) + 34.047 (G-l)
Energy Use per Model Farm (kW-hr/yr) fG-21
= Required Horsepower x l;000 hours/yr x 0.7457 kW-hr/HP-hr x FrequencyFactor
For example, the annual model farm estimates from a Beef, Pacific, Medium 1
CAFO for Option 1, Category 1 are:
Required Horsepower (HP)
= (0.2695 x 97 acres) + 34.047
= 60.189
Energy Use per Model Farm (kW-hr/yr)
= 60.189 x 1,000 hours/yr x 0.7457 kW-hr/HP-hr x 50%
= 22,441 kW-hr/yr
Industry-level results are simply calculated as the model farm results multiplied by
the number of facilities (as defined in Section 6).
Traveling Gun Irrigation
Farms with less than 30 acres available for liquid land application are assumed to
use traveling gun irrigation systems. To determine the energy required to operate the system,
vendor data presented in Section 5.1 relating the irrigated acres to flow rate and horsepower are
plotted on linear curves (Figures G-2 and G-3) that are used to calculate the required horsepower
of the traveling gun for each model farm. The equation for flow rate has a regression coefficient
of 0.9987, while the equation for horsepower has a regression coefficient of 0.9851.
G-2
-------
Figure G-2. Required Flow Rate for Model Farms-Traveling Gun Irrigation
Figure G-3. Required Horsepower for Model Farms-Traveling Gun Irrigation
The annual model farm estimates for energy use of traveling gun irrigation
systems are calculated using Figures G-2 and G-3 and Equations G-3 and G-4. It is assumed that
the irrigation system is operated 1,000 hours per year. Therefore:
Required Flowrate (gal/min) = (3.8465 x Irrigated Acres) - 0.5332
(G-3)
Required Horsepower (HP) = (0.0783 x Flow Rate) + 9.4348
(G-4)
G-3
-------
For example, the required flow rate and horsepower for a Beef, Pacific, Medium 1
CAFO for Option 1, Category 1 is:
Required Flowrate (gpm)
= (3.8465 x 8.12 acres) - 0.5332
= 30.61
Horsepower (kW-hr/yr)
= (0.0783 x 30.61 gpm) + 9.4348
= 11.83
Industry-level results are simply calculated as the model farm results multiplied by
the number of facilities (as defined in Section 6).
G-4
-------
Appendix H
Detailed Calculations for Energy Impacts -
Anaerobic Digesters with Methane Recovery
-------
Introduction
Appendix H presents example calculations used to generate model farm energy
impacts from anaerobic digesters with methane recovery for Large dairy and swine CAFOs.
Estimates are obtained using the methodology presented in Section 5.3 of this report and apply
only to Option 6.
The parameters specific to each swine model farm used in the FarmWare model
are presented in Tables H-l and H-2 of this appendix; dairy model farm parameters are presented
in the cost report.1 All other Farm Ware inputs (including items such as temperature and rainfall
data) resort to the program defaults.
The baseline electricity is estimated by the FarmWare model as the total
electricity required to operate the dairy or swine operation prior to the installation of the
anaerobic digester. The FarmWare model also estimates the total electricity required to operate
the dairy or swine operation after the installation of the anaerobic digester (Option 6). ERG
estimates the energy savings under Option 6 by calculating the difference between the electrical
requirements before and after the installation of the digester.
Example Energy Usage Calculation
This appendix presents an example calculation of energy usage under Option 6 for
a Large dairy operation. The FarmWare assessment for a Large flush dairy in Tulare, California
is presented in Figure H-l of this appendix. The assessment contains the details of the model
farm, including the parameters of the selected methane recovery system, and the energy and
financial performance of the system. Figure H-l presents the required peak kilowatts required
for the model farm both before and after the installation of the anaerobic digester. Equation H-l
is used to calculate the farm energy capacity, where the numbers of hours operated annually is
8,760, as shown in Figure H-l.
Annual Farm Energy (kW-hr/year) = Peak Demand (kW) x 8,760 (hr/year) (H-l)
The FarmWare model estimates the required peak kilowatts at baseline and after
the installation of the anaerobic digester. Using Equation H-l and the farm peak demands
presented in Figure H-l, the electrical requirements at baseline and under Option 6 are
calculated.
Annual Farm Energy, Baseline (kW-hr/year) = 159.4 (kW) x 8,760 (hr/year) = 1,396,344 kW-hr/year
Annual Farm Energy, Option 6 (kW-hr/year) = 103.7 (kW) x 8,760 (hr/year) = 908,412 kW-hr/year
U.S. EPA. 2002a. Cost Methodology Report for Animal Feeding Operations. Washington, DC.
December 2002.
H-l
-------
ERG estimates the energy savings associated with Option 6 by calculating the
difference between the electrical requirements before and after the installation of the digester
using Equation H-2.
Energy Savings (kW-hr/year) =
(Annual Farm Energy, Baseline - Annual Farm Energy, Option 6) (kW-hr/year) (H-2)
Using the annual farm energy requirements at baseline and under Option 6
calculated above and Equation H-2, the energy savings for the flush dairy model farm are:
Energy Savings (kW-hr/year) = (1,396,344 - 908,412) (kW-hr/year) = 487,932 kW-hr/year
Therefore, an energy benefit of 487,932 kW-hr/year is expected for this model farm.
Industry-level results for each animal type are simply calculated as the model farm
results multiplied by the number of facilities (as presented in Section 6).
H-2
-------
Table H-1
FarmWare Parameters
Animal
Type
Region
Avg head
Sows
County, state
Manure collection
Watershed runoff
New anaerobic cell
Covered lagoon digester
Complete mix digester
Storage tank
Storage pond
GF
Pit
MA
SA, NC
pull plug
N, w/HR
yes
yes
no
no
yes
GF
Pit
MW
8893
BO, IA
pull plug
N, w/HR
yes
yes
no
no
yes
GF
Lag
MA
10029 8893
SA, NC
flush to lagoon
N, w/HR
yes
yes
no
no
no
GF
Lag
MW
10029
BO, IA
flush to lagoon
N.w/HR
yes
yes
no
no
no
Swine -
Large 2
GF FF
Evap Pit
CE MA
29389 17118
2260
BE, UT SA, NC
flush to lagoon scrape/mix
N, w/HR N
yes no
yes no
no yes
no yes
no yes
FF
Pit
MW
BO, IA
pull plug
N
yes
yes
no
no
yes
FF
Lag
MA
13819 17118
1824 2260
SA, NC
flush to lagoon
N
yes
yes
no
no
no
FF
Lag
MW
13819
1824
BO, IA
flush to lagoon
N
yes
yes
no
no
no
FF
Evap
CE
8298
1095
BE, UT
flush to lagoon
N
yes
yes
no
no
no
H-3
-------
Table H-2
FarmWare Parameters
Animal
Type
Region
Avg head
Sows
County, state
Manure collection
Watershed runoff
New anaerobic cell
Covered lagoon digester
Complete mix digester
Storage tank
Storage pond
GF
Pit
MA
SA, NC
pull plug
N, w/ HR
yes
yes
no
no
yes
GF
Pit
MW
3554 3417
BO, IA
pull plug
N, w/ HR
yes
yes
no
no
yes
GF
Lag
MA
3554
SA, NC
flush to lagoon
N, w/ HR
yes
yes
no
no
no
Swine -
Large 1
GF GF FF
Lag Evap Pit
MW CE MA
3417 3455 8893
1174
BO, IA BE, UT SA, NC
flush to lagoon flush to lagoon pull plug
N, w/ HR N, w/HR N
yes yes yes
yes yes yes
no no no
no no no
no no yes
FF
Pit
MW
10029
1324
BO, IA
pull plug
N
yes
yes
no
no
yes
FF
Lag
MA
8893
1174
SA, NC
flush to lagoon
N
yes
yes
no
no
no
FF
Lag
MW
BO, IA
flush to
N
yes
yes
no
no
no
FF
Evap
CE
10029
1324
BE, UT
lagoon flush to
N
yes
yes
no
no
no
29389
3880
lagoon
H-4
-------
Figure H-1
FarmWare Assessment
for
FARM NAME
Flush 1430
This assessment is provided as a first step in evaluating the financial and technical potential of methane
recovery technology at FARM NAME and is to be considered preliminary and used as guidance only. It is
imperative that a detailed final feasibility assessment be completed by qualified agricultural and energy
engineers prior to any design, construction, or purchase of materials. The AgSTAR Handbook may be used
for additional reference and guidance on the process.
All Information presented in this report is confidential and proprietary and may not be released to parties
aside from FARM NAME, the EPA/USDA/DOE AgSTAR Program, and its approved contractors and
subcontractors.
Prepared by:
«User Name»
«User Company»
«User Address»
Please submit one copy of this report to:
AgSTAR Program; U.S. EPA (6202J); 401 M Street, S.W.; Washington, DC 20460
H-5
-------
Summary
FARM NAME is a 1,430 milk cows freestall dairy located in Tulare County, California. Electric service is provided
by UTILITY NAME. Electricity expenses over the past 12 months billing history were $82,056 and propane
purchases were $12,771.
This farm evaluation is for a Double Cell Lagoon methane recovery system. The capital cost of this system is
estimated to be $218,028. The financial performance of this option is based on:
1. the past 12 month billing history from UTILITY NAME and annual propane costs; and
2. projected energy savings under Default and propane savings from heat recovery.
The evaluation uses an 85% operational efficiency, $0.015 kWh O&M, 0% downpayment, and a 10 year system
life. The financial performance of this evaluation is summarized below.
Table 1: Financial Results of Methane Recovery
Methane
Recovery
Option
Double Cell Lagoon
Installation
Cost ($)
218,028
Annual
Savings ($)
66,190
Simple
Payback
(yrs)
4.0
Internal
Rate of
Return (%)
<0
Net
Present
Value ($)
105,343
Detailed Assessment
Farm Description
FARM NAME is a 1,430 milk cows freestall dairy located in Tulare County, California.
population levels as well as the time spent in housing are summarized below:
The remaining animal
Table 2: Standing Animal Populations and Time Spent in Housing (Hours)
Type of Housing
Number of Animals
Parlor
Free Stall Barn
Feed Apron
Drylot
Barn
Cow-Lac
1,430
4
20
0
0
0
Cow-Dry
0
0
0
0
0
0
Heifer
429
0
0
0
24
0
Calf
429
0
0
0
24
0
Bull
Manure Management
The selected methane recovery system at this farm is a Double Cell Lagoon. A total of 19,296 gallons of manure
and 186,378 gallons of water enter the system on a daily basis. The total solids content of the influent manure
stream is 0.6%. These characteristics are summarized below:
Table 3: Manure and Water Amounts Entering the Methane Recovery Facility, Gallons
Total Manure Total Water Total Influent
Facility
Parlor
Free Stall Barn
Process Water
(gal)
3,216
16,080
0
(gai)
43,378
143,000
0
(gai)
46,594
159,080
0
Total
19,296
186,378
205,674
H-6
-------
Energy Use
Electric Service at this farm provided by UTILITY NAME. FARM NAME is currently on a Default rate schedule.
Electrical costs over the past 12 month billing period on Default were $82,056. Propane costs were also based
on a 12 month billing period and are estimated to be $12,771. Figure 1 illustrates the farm's monthly energy costs
and Figure 2 illustrates the farm's monthly energy (kWh) and demand (kW).
Figure 1: Energy Costs
Figure 2: Energy and Demand
00 .
O
03
E
0>
Q
LJJ
i ' r
Jan Mar May Jul
I
CD
O
O
-------
Figure 3: Comparative Demand
Figure 4: Comparative Energy
">• o
~\.jf {
CO
CD
o s
E N
CD
LL o
V
X
Jan
w^_
fl
nH
Wlar May Jul
Month
^nO
^^
Sep
A
£_
•iov
p
O New Peak O Previous Peak
O
o
O
O)
co .
V
IV
1
V
f*rJ
v
k>J
)^>-<
^^
>1
y1
Jan
Mar
May Jul
Month
Sep
Nov
O Purchased Energy Aft. Digeste v Required Energy
Figure 5: Electric Revenue
Jan Mar May Jul
Month
Sep No¥
O Elec. Purch. After Digester O Elec. Purch. Before Digester
Cost Benefit Analysis
The total cost of the Double Cell Lagoon at this farm is estimated to be $218,028. Estimated annual returns from
displaced electrical costs are $66,190. The payback on the investment of this project is estimated to be 4.0
years. Additionally, the internal rate of return (IRR) is estimated to be <0% and the net present value (NPV) is
estimated to be $105,343. This very positive NPV indicates that the selected methane recovery option should be
profitable. A complete summary of the estimated costs and benefits are detailed below:
H-8
-------
Table 5: Cost and Benefit Analysis
COSTS
Sid Separator
Primary Lagoon
Lagoon Cover
Secondary Storage
Generator Bldg.
Engineering
TOTAL COSTS
Electricity and Hot Water
0
42,651
68,327
0
82,050
25,000
218,028
BENEFITS
Annual 'On-Farm' Energy Savings
Propane Savings
Other Benefits
Odor Benefits
TOTAL BENEFITS
54,799
11,391
0
0
66,190
Table 6: Financial Performance
Project Life (years) 10
Downpayment (%) 0
Loan Rate (%) 7
Discount Rate (%) 7
Tax Rate (%) 35
Depreciation Type SYD
O&M Elect. ($/kWh) 0.015
Energy Cost Growth (%/yr) 5.0
NPV($) 105,343
Payback (years) 4.0
IRR (%) <0
H-9
------- |