ei tludtenvironmental update

E i t l U d tEnvironmental Update:The Good The Bad andThe Good The Bad andThe Good, The Bad, and The Good, The Bad, and

The UglyThe Uglyg yg y

Ashley B. Peterson, Ph.D.Director of Regulatory AffairsDirector of Regulatory Affairs

American Meat Institute

AMERICAN MEAT INSTITUTE

October 28, 2010

Environmental UpdateEnvironmental Update• The Good, The Bad, The Ugly….• Administration vs. Agency vs. Hill vs. Media

– ALL versus Animal Agriculture

• Air and Water Issues• Air and Water Issues• Greenhouse Gas Regulation/Legislation• Watershed Issues – Chesapeake Bay TMDL and p y

Florida Nutrient Standards• Particulate Matter, CAFO Regulations, Dioxin,

tetc…


Who is the American Meat Institute?Who is the American Meat Institute?

• National trade association that representsNational trade association that represents companies that process 95 percent of red meat and 70 percent of turkey in the U.S. and their suppliers throughout Americathroughout America.

• Headquartered in Washington, DC• Track legislation regulation and media activitiesTrack legislation, regulation, and media activities

that impacts the meat and poultry industry • AMI Foundation – conducts and funds scientific

research designed to help meat and poultry companies improve their plants and their products.


L t’ t t ith GHGLet’s start with GHGs….


Greenhouse GasesGreenhouse Gases


Where do GHG’s come from?Where do GHG s come from?• Boilers• Wastewater Treatment Facilities and Lagoons• Lairage/yards

CO St i S t• CO2 Stunning Systems• Rendering• RefrigerationRefrigeration• Fleet Vehicles• Sludge Applicationg pp• Blending• Implementation of Best Available Control


Technologies (BACT)

Where do GHG’s come from?Where do GHG s come from?Source Percent ContributionElectricity Generation 33.5%Transportation 26.4%I d t i l 11 8%Industrial 11.8%Residential 4.8%Commercial 3 0%Commercial 3.0%Agriculture Soil Management 2.9%Animal Agriculture* 2.8%Landfills 1.9%Non-Energy Use of Fuel 1.9%


(*Includes enteric fermentation and manure management)Source: EPA Inventory of U.S. Emissions and Sinks (1990 – 2007)

Other 11%

Another ViewAnother View…


Breakdown of Animal Agriculture’s Contribution

• 85.4% of all GHG emissions from CO2– 94% from fossil fuel

combustionI i ifi t t ib ti– Insignificant contribution from animal agriculture

• 8.2% of all GHG emissions from CH4from CH4– 31.1% from animal

agriculture• 4.4% of all GHG emissions

f Ofrom N2O– 4.7% is from animal

agriculture (manure management)


management)

Challenges We FaceChallenges We Face• “The Livestock sector is a major player, responsible

f 18% f GHG i i d i CO Thifor 18% of GHG emissions measured in CO2. This is a higher share than transport” (UN FAO 2006)

• “Which is responsible for more global warming:Which is responsible for more global warming: your BMW or your Big Mac? Believe it or not, it’s your Big Mac” (Time, 2007)“A 16 T b i lik h• “A 16 oz T-bone is like a hummer on a plate. Switching to vegetarianism can shrink your carbon footprint bycan shrink your carbon footprint by 1.5 tons of CO2 per year” (Time, 2007)


There is hopeThere is hope…• FAO has since retracted their statements.• Maurice E. Pitesky, Kimberly R. Stackhouse, and

Frank M. Mitloehner. “Clearing the Air: Livestock’s Contribution to Climate Change” in Advances inContribution to Climate Change in Advances in Agronomy, Vol. 103.– “…intensification of livestock production provides large

opportunities for climate change mitigation and canopportunities for climate change mitigation and can reduce greenhouse gas emissions from deforestation, thus becoming a long-term solution to a more sustainable livestock production ”livestock production.

• Other work encouraging concentration, improved efficiencies of scale, etc.


The FactsThe Facts• GHG emissions from animal agriculture have

i d l ti l t t th t 20remained relatively constant over the past 20 years– Increase in meat production by 50%– Increase in milk production by 16%p y– Increase in egg production of almost 33%

• How? I d f d ffi i i– Improved feed efficiencies

– Better manure management– More efficient use of cropland– Improved genetics for animals and crops

• Fact Sheet posted at www.meatami.com on this topic and many others


topic and many others

Wh t i EPA d i b t GHG ?What is EPA doing about GHGs?


GHG R ti PGHG Reporting Program

• Oct 30 2009 EPA published a rule for mandatory• Oct 30, 2009 EPA published a rule for mandatory reporting of GHG from large sources

• EPA says this will help them obtain a better understanding of where GHGs come from (defining a target?)

• Must report annually if a facility emits over 25 000• Must report annually if a facility emits over 25,000 tons CO2

• EPA estimates this will cover 85-90% of emissions• First reports due to EPA by March 31, 2011 for data

collected in the previous yearN d H l ? El t i GHG ti t l GGRT


• Need Help? Electronic GHG reporting tool: eGGRT

EPA’s Regulatory PrioritiesEPA s Regulatory Priorities

T il i R lE d t Tailoring RuleEndangermentFinding

Johnson MemoLight-DutyLight-Duty Vehicle Rule


Endangerment FindingEndangerment Finding• In response to the April 2007 Supreme Court decision,

Massachusetts v EPA which directed EPA to determineMassachusetts v. EPA, which directed EPA to determine if GHG emissions from motor vehicles cause/contribute to air pollution and endanger public health or welfare.

• EPA: Under section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act, GHGs threaten public health and welfare and GHG emissions from motor vehicles contribute to the threat.

• December 2009, the Endangerment Finding was finalized indicating that GHGs threaten public health and welfare and emissions of these GHGs from motorwelfare and emissions of these GHGs from motor vehicles contribute to GHG pollution which also threatens public health and welfare.

• The finding paves the way for the EPA to finalize GHG


• The finding paves the way for the EPA to finalize GHG standards for light-duty vehicles.

Li ht D t V hi l St d dLight-Duty Vehicle Standard

• Endangerment Finding paved the way for the• Endangerment Finding paved the way for the implementation and finalization of the Light-Duty Vehicle Standard (April 1, 2010).

• Light-Duty Vehicle standard made GHG emissions “subject to regulation” under the Clean Air Act for the first timeClean Air Act for the first time.

• Sets emission standards for new vehicles from 2012 to 2016.

• Under the CAA, air pollutants that are “subject to regulation” under the statute are subject to the Act’s PSD/NSR permitting and Title V operating permit


PSD/NSR permitting and Title V operating permit provisions for stationary sources.

“Johnson Memo” RuleJohnson Memo Rule• Bush-era memo from EPA Administrator, Stephen

JohnsonJohnson • Addressed when the Clean Air Act PSD program would

cover a pollutant including GHGs• Memo indicated that the PSD program would apply to

pollutants that are “subject to” either a provision in the CAA or a regulation adopted by the EPA under the g p yCAA.

• EPA: Regulation of GHG tailpipe emissions triggerstailpipe emissions triggers full PSD/Title V regulation of GHGs from all sources


Tailoring RuleTailoring Rule• On September 30, 2009, EPA announced a

proposal that would require facilities emitting overproposal that would require facilities emitting over 25,000 tons/year to obtain permits that would demonstrate they are using the best practices and technologies to minimize emissions.

• EPA claims that without the tailoring rule schools, hospitals small farms and restaurants would behospitals, small farms, and restaurants would be subject to Title V and PSD permitting.

• On May 13, 2010, EPA released the final rule and increased the threshold to 75,000 tons/year and facilities below this threshold would not be required to obtain an operating permit.


required to obtain an operating permit.

EPA’s Regulatory PrioritiesEPA s Regulatory Priorities

T il i R lE d t Tailoring RuleEndangermentFinding

Johnson MemoLight-DutyLight-Duty Vehicle Rule


Political PressurePolitical Pressure


Political PressurePolitical Pressure• In response to a letter written by Democratic

S t J R k f ll EPA d id d t d llSenator Jay Rockefeller, EPA decided to gradually phase in GHG regulations for fear of harming the economy.y

• EPA agreed that it would not phase-in permit requirements for GHG’s for large stationary sources until 2011 In the first half of 2011 only thoseuntil 2011. In the first half of 2011, only those facilities which must apply for CAA permits as a result of non-GHG emissions will need to address GHG emissions.

• EPA does not expect to regulate the smallest source to GHG permitting any sooner than 2016


source to GHG permitting any sooner than 2016.

Political PressureSenator Lisa Murkowski (R-AK)

R l d i l “ l ti f• Rarely used congressional “resolution of disapproval”

• An attempt to block EPA’s ability to regulateAn attempt to block EPA s ability to regulate greenhouse gas emissions under its current Clean Air Act powers V t d J 10 2010• Voted on June 10, 2010

• Did not pass


Kerry/Lieberman LegislationKerry/Lieberman Legislation• Newest climate change legislation • Introduced May 12, 2010• 1,000 pages long

EPA’ i l i l i “ i i l” i t• EPA’s economic analysis claims “minimal” impact• Concerns from industry include:

– Offshore drillingOffshore drilling– Stability of the carbon market– Impact on jobs

Distribution of carbon allowances– Distribution of carbon allowances

• Chances for passage?


Current StatusCurrent Status• Congress is in recess• Lame duck session? What will happen?• Senator Harry Reid (D-NV), if he is re-elected,

claims he will try a piecemeal approach to passingclaims he will try a piecemeal approach to passing climate related legislation

• Chances in 2011? Depends on November 2nd

elections.• Political forecasting???


218 Needed for Majorityj yProjections

190 Blue198 Red47 Toss Up


47 Toss Up

51 Needed For MajorityP j tiProjections

46 Blue2 Independent44 Red


8 Toss Up

Obama Administration’s PushObama Administration s Push• Push for an energy policy in 2011• Will veto any legislation that hinders

the authority of EPA C ti t t lk li t h• Continue to talk up climate change

• Executive Orders:– October 5, 2009 – GHG reduction target for the 500,000October 5, 2009 GHG reduction target for the 500,000

federal buildings, 600,000 vehicles, and 1.8 million employees for 2020.

– May 12, 2009 – Chesapeake Bay Protection andMay 12, 2009 Chesapeake Bay Protection and Restoration. Final strategy to make all waters in the Bay fishable and swimmable by one year from the order. Strong emphasis on agriculture.


Chesapeake Bay TMDLChesapeake Bay TMDL• EPA published its Draft Chesapeake Bay TMDL on

S t b 24 2010September 24, 2010• Sets 522 separate TMDLs for a 64,000 mile2 area in

almost 2,000 pagesalmost 2,000 pages• Model TMDL for all other watersheds in the U.S.• Allowing for a 45-day comment period (Due Nov. 8)• Requested extension to 120 days• EPA will establish TMDL by December 31, 2010• Why the urgency?

– Chesapeake Bay Foundation Lawsuit and Settlement


Chesapeake Bay TMDLChesapeake Bay TMDL• Threatens to impose allocations

ll titi th t ion small entities that raise more than ONE animal

• Sets unachievable limits on N, P,Sets unachievable limits on N, P, and sediments (pre-colonial)

• Used a flawed model with i l /i i f iincomplete/incorrect information and assumptions on agriculture practices in Bayp y

• EPA is being secretive• Have seen substantial reductions


in nutrient and sediment loss to the bay over the past 25 years

Florida Proposed Nutrient StandardsFlorida Proposed Nutrient Standards

• On January 26, 2010 EPA published a notice of d l ki t t bli h t litproposed rulemaking to establish water quality

standards for Florida’s lakes and flowing waters• First time EPA has attempted to displace stateFirst time EPA has attempted to displace state

efforts by establishing federal numeric nutrient criteriaUF i i ill $974 illi ll• UF estimates it will cost up to $974 million annually for Florida’s agriculture industry to meet the criteria plus a $631 million loss in revenue!p

• Set standards below background levels.• Complete disregard of EPA’s SAB…


DioxinDioxin• Complete disregard of EPA’s SAB and the NAS

EPA l d d h di i i “ i i h ”• EPA concluded that dioxin is “carcinogenic to humans”• On January 7, 2010, EPA published a draft interim soil

standards stating that 90% of human exposure to gdioxin occurs through consumption of food, primarily from beef, dairy, poultry, eggs, fish, and pork.

• On May 21, 2010, EPA released its dioxin On May 21, 2010, EPA released its dioxin reassessment setting limits below WHO standards.

• If the Agency were to set its regulations based on the reassessment it would mean no food would be safe for reassessment it would mean no food would be safe for consumption.


2011-2013 EPA Enforcement Priorities

• One of six enforcement priorities is to focus on i th t C t t d A i l F diensuring that Concentrated Animal Feeding

Operations (CAFOs), about 19,000 operations, comply with the CWA requirements to protect p y q psurface waters from animal waste.

• This priority was a 2007-2009 priority but enforcement was sporadic and smallenforcement was sporadic and small.


CAFO RegulationsCAFO Regulations• Current CAFO Rule published in November 2008

P bli h d i t t d i i th t l d• Published in response to a court decision that ruled the CWA regulated actual discharges and not potential discharges.

• Language dealing with “no discharge certification” option in the 2008 rule.

• It was an option created voluntary to producers soIt was an option created, voluntary to producers, so a producer could show EPA that they went through an objective process to establish they are not discharging or proposing to do sodischarging or proposing to do so.

• It buys the farmer some protection if in the event of a future discharge (limits their CWA liability).


CAFO RegulationsCAFO Regulations• EPA signed settlement agreement with environmental

groups on May 28 2010 and developed angroups on May 28, 2010 and developed an “Implementation Guidance on CAFO Regulations – CAFOs That Discharge or Propose to Discharge

• In the Guidance – “The no discharge certification is a• In the Guidance – The no discharge certification is a voluntary option for CAFOs that are not subject to NPDES permitting requirements. Therefore, states are not required to adopt the certification option into their CAFO program. p p p g

• How can the no discharge certification be voluntary if the state chooses not to offer it?

• If the state chooses not to offer it then theIf the state chooses not to offer it, then the producer has no option whatsoever.


Dust/Particulate Matter RegulationsDust/Particulate Matter Regulations• EPA is reviewing its airborne pollutant standards, as

i d fi d th CAArequired every five years under the CAA. – Tiny particles of industrial pollution– “Coarse particulate matter" that include dust p

• For dust, EPA’s SAB recommend a standard of 65-85 micrograms/m3 as opposed to the current 150 micrograms/m3micrograms/m3

• Proposed changes to be announced in February 2011 with a final rule published in October 2011. p

• The EPA said in a statement that it is "committed to issuing air quality standards for particle pollution that are scientifically sound "


are scientifically sound."

OthersOthers…..• The NOx and SOx Secondary National Ambient Air

Quality Standards (NAAQS) Review Panel of theQuality Standards (NAAQS) Review Panel of the EPA Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) is holding public hearingsB il MACT t t i t i i li it f• Boiler MACT - set stringent emission limits for hazardous air pollutants from industrial, commercial, and institutional boilers that combust f il f l d bifossil fuels and biomass.

• EPA/DOT Fuel Standards for heavy duty trucks and buses (October 25, 2010)( , )– 20 percent reduction in CO2 emissions and fuel

consumption by 2018 model year• EPA Blend Rate for ethanol


e d ate o et a o

QUESTIONS?QUESTIONS?


ei tludtenvironmental update

Documents