USDA Agricultural Air Quality Task Force

Meeting Minutes

July 18, 2001

Adam’s Mark Hotel

1550 Court Place, Silver Room

Denver, Colorado 80202

 

Members present:

Viney Aneja                                         Kevin Rogers

Bob Avant                                            Annette Sharp

Emmett Barker                                     Sally Shaver

George Bluhm                                      John Sweeten

Manuel Cunha                                      Jim Trotter

Bob Flocchini                                       Michael Unsworth

Kelley Green                                        Phil Wakelyn

Roger Isom                                          Stephanie Whalen

Calvin Parnell                                       Phyllis Woodford

Wayne Robarge                                  

Gary Margheim, Acting Chair

 

Other NRCS Support Staff:

Beth Sauerhaft, Roel Vining, John Brenner, Jeff Schmidt, Elvis Graves, John Beyer

 

Other EPA Support Staff:

Robin Dunkins, Phil Lorang, Randy Waite

 

Other Federal Personnel:

            Jean-Mari Peltier, EPA

            Mack Gray, USDA

            Ray Knighton, CSREES

            Dick Amerman, ARS

             

Public Citizens:

Representative Diane Hoppe,                      Trevor Tuell, Colorado Livestock

      Colorado Legislature                                  Association

Ray Knighton, CSREES                             Vickie Idler, Colorado Grain and    Feed

Gary Graalman, Colorado                                 Association      

Adam Sharp, Farm Bureau

      Department of Agriculture

 

The second meeting of this Charter Committee of the Agricultural Air Quality Task Force was called to order by George Bluhm. Mr. Bluhm began by explaining various procedures, including the FACA rules, to all those present, and then he turned the meeting over to Dr. Gary Margheim, acting chair for Pearlie Reed.

Before inviting Phyllis Woodford, the Task Force’s host in Denver, to make a few opening comments, Dr. Margheim thanked her for organizing the previous day’s field trip. Ms. Woodford also recognized Gary Graalman from the Colorado Department of Agriculture for all of his help with the field trip, and she acknowledged that the trip was a cooperative event with the Colorado Corn Growers’ Association, the Colorado Wheat Growers, the Colorado Cooperative Council, the Colorado Grain and Feed Association, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Ms. Woodford also pointed out that State Senator Marilyn Musgrave had participated in the field trip. 

Ms. Woodford introduced Diana Hoppe, Chair of the House Agriculture Natural Resources Committee in the State Legislature. She addressed the AAQTF on Colorado Agriculture, the state of Agriculture in general, and the need for sound science in regulations. 

Manuel Cunha expressed his appreciation to Representative Hoppe and Senator Musgrave for taking time to attend the Task Force’s meeting. George Bluhm then thanked Representative Hoppe for her comments.

Next, Phyllis Woodford introduced Gary Graalman from the Colorado Department of Agriculture. Mr. Graalman briefly discussed the rationale behind the choice of farms and facilities that were visited on the previous day’s tour, and how these operations demonstrated positive changes in agriculture.

As the next order of business, Gary Margheim asked if there was a motion to approve the minutes from the last meeting, held March 27 and 28, 2001, in Washington, D.C. John Sweeten moved to approve them as presented. Bob Avant seconded the motion but pointed out an error on page 15 of the March 27^th minutes that needed to be corrected. George Bluhm responded that other Task Force members had also brought minor errors to his attention, and he promised to make those changes.

Dr. Margheim called for the question; the motion passed to approve the minutes with minor editorial changes.

Sally Shaver introduced Jean-Mari Peltier, Counselor to the Administrator of EPA on Agriculture Policy. Ms. Peltier told the Task Force about her background and past experience working on agricultural policy issues. She said that this experience had given her insight into how to work with the grower communities to effect real change at the field level. Ms. Peltier announced that she would be present for the full two days of the Task Force meeting “because I want to show you, both by words and by being here, that I am very much interested in the work in which your task force has been involved.”  Ms. Peltier indicated that she would be listening carefully to the committee’s proceedings and trying to become more familiar with Task Force’s activities, especially because she had been asked by Secretary of Agriculture Veneman and Administrator Whitman to serve on an inter-agency task force on the Farm Bill.

Gary Margheim thanked Ms. Peltier for participating in the Task Force’s meeting. He said that EPA is working more closely with agriculture and coming to a better understanding of the industry.

John Sweeten expressed how happy the Task Force was to see the position of EPA Advisor on Agriculture Policy revived.

Phyllis Woodford commented that the states will need to be creative in working with the agricultural sector for compliance assistance purposes and hopefully on some proactive, voluntary-type initiatives.

Stephanie Whalen asked if Ms. Peltier had heard of the Environmental Stewardship Program that Florida is starting, which will be an incentive-based program. Ms. Peltier said she had heard about it, and in fact the new Commissioner of Agriculture from Florida had invited her to come down to see what they are doing in those voluntary programs.

Viney Aneja commented that he had heard USDA was making a moderate effort to provide resources to address agricultural air quality issues, and he wondered if EPA had also devoted necessary resources to these issues. Dr. Aneja encouraged Ms. Peltier to consider the possibility of some modest funding to address this lack of good scientific understanding related to air quality. Ms. Peltier responded that she had read through the minutes of the last Task Force meeting, and she recalled that this was one of the recommendations presented to Secretary Veneman. She promised to look at the funding because it was one of the key issues.

Bob Flocchini mentioned that he had met with the program directors of the Interagency Monitoring Program, a committee with members from the National Park Service, Forest Service, and EPA. They are putting together a work group on dust, and they asked Dr. Flocchini if the Task Force would like to have representatives on the committee.

To follow up on Dr. Aneja’s earlier comments about resources, Bob Avant explained that at the last meeting, the Task Force recommended to the Secretary of Agriculture a $65 million research effort for agricultural air quality issues. Mr. Avant remarked that was actually a very small effort for a potentially immense problem: “People in agriculture could be put out of business if we don’t resolve some of these technical issues involving particulates.” He urged Ms. Peltier to impress upon the appropriate congressional staff, EPA staff, and OMB personnel the importance of agricultural air quality issues. He declared that it is essential that air quality be set aside as a freestanding implementation and research program at both USDA and EPA.

Bob Avant proposed that USDA’s budget people communicate more with OMB to convince them that air quality is an important issue, and that it has the potential to be just as consequential to agriculture as the effect of foot-in-mouth disease.

Next, Gary Margheim called on Sally Shaver to give her update on activities in EPA. At the last meeting, Ms. Shaver told the Task Force about the draft criteria document setting National Agricultural Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for particulate matter. She said EPA had drafted a preliminary staff paper, which interprets the science presented in the criteria document. These documents were released on June 15, and the public comment period was open through July 12, although they were still accepting comments. EPA would be discussing the documents with the Clean Air Science Advisory Committee (CASAC) on July 23 and 24 to get some early feedback.

Ms. Shaver also told the Task Force that on June 6, 2001, a memo went out to all of the EPA regions encouraging them to meet with the commissioners of their State Departments of Agriculture to ask them what their greatest concerns were in terms of EPA and the agricultural issues. Ms. Shaver said that several of the regions already had these meetings and several others were planned. The information from these meetings will then come back to EPA headquarters and Jean-Mari Peltier to help EPA focus on these issues.

Before the group took a break, Dr. Margheim commented on the increased interest in air quality at high levels in USDA and EPA. He believed that the personal appearance of the Secretary of Agriculture at the last meeting, Jean-Mari Peltier’s attendance at this meeting for the full two days, and the following day’s appearance by USDA’s Deputy Undersecretary demonstrates USDA’s and EPA’s interest in and recognition of the importance of air quality.

Following the break were the reports from the Task Force subcommittees. Reporting on the Follow-Up Subcommittee, Co-Chair Bob Avant said that his group had been focusing on making sure that the $65 million research initiative was given some visibility at USDA. He and Manuel Cunha will schedule a meeting for August 3 to work with the Administrator and possibly with the Secretary to establish several priorities for the initiative. The subcommittee would be promoting the following priorities:

1.      Create a stand-alone air quality research area in USDA (the subcommittee’s top priority)

2.      During fiscal year 2002, budget $5 million to begin some air quality research

3.      Beyond FY 2002, budget $20 million for the research program

4.      Start consultations with EPA and USDA to get the $65 million program fully funded at both agencies.

Mr. Avant invited other Task Force members to attend the August 3 meeting, particularly representatives of the Research Subcommittee.

The Research Subcommittee report, presented by Co-Chair Jim Trotter provided, for the benefit of the new Task Force members, some background information on how the committee’s research priorities were developed. He told of how the Task Force helped create the memorandum of understanding (MOU) between USDA and EPA, and he described the Task Force’s early concerns about farmers being regulated based on a number of assumptions, not based on good science. To encourage and promote research into what agriculture is actually contributing or not contributing to the air quality problem, the Task Force set a number of priorities on agricultural research based on when the regulations would be implemented. The ordered priorities were 1) PM₁₀, 2) PM_2.5 and ozone, and 3) odor. Mr. Trotter explained the priorities and handed out a copy of how they were subdivided and allocated suggested funding. The rationale behind the research priorities is explained in various Task Force reports and summarized in a one-page document, which was recently sent to Secretary Veneman.

Mr. Trotter then requested the Task Force’s comments on or changes to the research priorities as presented. Annette Sharp asked that the subcommittee consider adding a placeholder in the subdivided list for the results of current work by the Emissions Factor Subcommittee; Mr. Trotter agreed.

Gary Margheim interjected that during the budget process, Pearlie Reed had exercised his prerogative as chairperson and given the one-page document to the Secretary and the Chief of Staff, recognizing that the full committee had not had the opportunity to update or change priorities. USDA was in the middle of the 2003 budget process, and that document was the best thing they had at the time.

Manuel Cunha agreed that the research priority documents prepared in 1998 were the best they had to date, but the documents could still be modified and kept dynamic. However, Mr. Cunha believed the committee should not alter the one-page document that was forwarded to the Secretary. Bob Avant supported Mr. Cunha’s suggestion to continue to use the current one-page document as the talking-point document for the August 3 meeting.

Calvin Parnell briefly mentioned the Task Force’s earliest requests for research funding, which were completely unsuccessful, but he expressed hope in the support of the current administration.

Wayne Robarge asked the Research Subcommittee if there were any regional issues that might be brought up in discussions of the research proposal. Mr. Trotter replied that a number of the issues were indeed regional. Not all areas of the country face grass burning issues or PM₁₀ issues, for example, but he said the Research Subcommittee had tried to look at air quality from a national perspective. Gary Margheim added, “Some of this may be regionalized, but in composite, there’s a national concern about air quality as it relates to agriculture for just about every state.”

Mike Unsworth expressed his support of Manuel Cunha’s suggestion to not alter the one-page document, but he urged the committee to update the longer documents based on emerging science. Echoing Calvin Parnell’s comments, he added, “The time may soon be right to actually see some real money come out of this, so it’s very important that we have the more detailed documents ready and as up-to-date as possible.”

Phyllis Woodford also believed the one-page document should not be changed, but she proposed explicitly listing ammonia in the PM_2.5 standard.

John Sweeten responded that when the original research priority documents were written in 1998, the language was made broad enough to include many compounds, such as ammonia and volatile organic compounds (VOCs), without having to explicitly name them all. Dr. Sweeten also agreed that the Task Force should proceed with its current documents but plan to update them with the various subcommittees by the same time next year.

Emmett Barker asked at what point in the budget process the decision-makers would request more information and detail than is provided in the one-page summary. Gary Margheim replied that for USDA’s purposes, the one-pager presently furnished enough information. He suspected that questions would arise during the appropriations process, so it would be important to have more detailed documents to show the appropriators. Jean-Mari Peltier added that EPA is always concerned about earmarked funds because they can potentially cut into some of the work the agency is already doing on emissions standards and initiatives. However, EPA does support the need for more research into air quality issues and welcomes any new monies that Congress might grant them.

Mr. Barker suggested that the priorities of the AAQTF should be communicated to the appropriate committees of the US Congress.

Bob Flocchini echoed John Sweeten’s comments about keeping the listed items general enough to support all of the research in this area. He said that making it too specific too soon could effectively disqualify research results that are released in the next year—results that could be utilized to actually advance the research field.

With respect to Emmett Barker’s earlier comments on when details are needed, Kelley Green said he saw securing the funding as the first step in an ongoing process.

Jean-Mari Peltier asked if there were opportunities to work with private foundations, particularly those that are pressing the hardest for agriculture to make changes in the air, to look for research money. Both Gary Margheim and Calvin Parnell answered yes, citing the Cotton Foundation and the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association as groups that have helped fund work on emission factors. Ms. Peltier indicated, however, that she was inquiring more specifically about some of the organizations that have brought suits against the agricultural community.

John Sweeten mentioned that while he was not aware of any funding that has been provided specifically to any university from a foundation for agricultural air quality work, he said he knew of only a few foundations that might be worth pursuing. Adding to Dr. Parnell’s earlier list, Dr. Sweeten said that the National Pork Producers Council and the Texas Cattle Feeders’ Association have invested a great deal of money in air quality research specific to their industries. “What we have not seen,” he said, “is the public sector, as represented by USDA and EPA, coming to the table with some substantial programs in those areas.”

Wayne Robarge remarked that Ms. Peltier’s suggestion to pursue the other foundations was an excellent one because those groups represent a large pool of money that is not necessarily flowing into agricultural research. He said that in his experience trying to solicit these funds, he found that the foundations are not interested in funding basic research, but rather only wish to fund research that will lead to policy decisions.

Viney Aneja told Ms. Peltier that most air quality scientists who are outside the realm of agriculture have pursued research in the arena of fundamental scientific exploration, which ultimately finds its way into regulatory policy. He believed these scientists and researchers have generally gone to the agencies that fund the fundamental research, such as NSF or EPA and NASA, and have not chosen to go to either a foundation or a commodity group largely because those groups want an answer that will quickly be related into some policy relevant to their interests.

Emmett Barker commented that a dialog possibly should be initiated with the Environmental Foundation Group, which is a group of around 350 foundations. Bob Flocchini related some of UC Davis’s experiences trying to get funding from the Kellogg, Packard, Hewlett, and Gates foundations. Dr. Flocchini stated that securing foundation funding will require a unified effort and multiple approaches. If agricultural air quality issues could be expressed as a broader problem requiring immediate consideration, they should receive more attention. He said that the Packard and Hewlett foundations specifically would then be open to those issues.

Manuel Cunha stated that California initiated the largest PM₁₀ study in the world—$31 million—and they are now initiating a $38 million ozone study. However, Mr. Cunha asserted, “It is the inherent responsibility of USDA to step up to the plate and do what it was legislated by Congress to do: support agriculture and make sure it stays viable. But USDA has failed.” He admitted though that he sees a positive change in USDA under the new Secretary of Agriculture. Mr. Cunha ended by declaring that to really make progress on the agricultural air quality issues, the Task Force must focus on new monies for USDA and EPA to conduct the needed research, and the committee must continue to go after foundation funds.

Bob Avant made a motion to establish within USDA a stand-alone research category specifically for air quality research, and to implement the $65 million air quality research program previously approved by the Task Force. The motion was seconded, and carried with Sally Shaver from EPA abstaining.

Gary Margheim then turned the meeting back to Jim Trotter to continue the Research Subcommittee report. Mr. Trotter introduced Dick Amerman, the National Program Leader for the Air Quality National Program of the Agricultural Research Service (ARS). Dr. Amerman reminded the group that USDA’s research efforts are divided between two agencies: ARS is the in-house agency, base-funded through congressional appropriations, whose mission is to address the research needs of USDA agencies, and the Cooperative State Research Education and Extension Service (CSREES) coordinates and funds outside research. ARS’s program in air quality is the smallest of the agency’s 22 national programs, and its funding is around $6.5 million. ARS has national program components in particulates, ammonia, ozone, odor, pesticides, and other volatile organic compounds that are released in the process of doing business in agriculture.

Dr. Amerman explained that the Air Quality National Program was currently preparing for the next five-year plan for air quality research within ARS, which will go through a formal review process. He said that a number of the Task Force members’ names had been submitted as potential panel members, and they would be contacted soon. The new five-year program would be initiated around the beginning of 2002.

Dr. Amerman also reported that since the last Task Force meeting, he had talked with the Office of Budget and Program Analysis (OBPA) in USDA regarding what gets into the USDA budget that is forwarded to the Congress. He briefly explained the steps of the budget process, and then described his experience with the process when he and others were developing and trying to fund the President’s Initiative on Enhancing Water Quality in 1990. 

Bob Avant asked Dr. Amerman who was doing the air quality research in ARS. Dr. Amerman answered that ARS has a longstanding program in wind erosion research, and those engineers and scientists were the ones to begin work on particulates, since PM₁₀ is one of the components of a wind erosion event.

Mike Unsworth inquired whether ARS had prioritized areas of air quality research. Dr. Amerman replied that ARS was not establishing a prioritization process but an actual research plan, specifying which scientists will do which work.

Dr. Unsworth then commented on Dr. Amerman’s successful experience getting funding for water quality research. Dr. Unsworth noted that the program for water quality was a much more tightly focused topic than the sort of agricultural air quality program the Task Force is describing in the one-page summary of research priorities, and he wondered if Dr. Amerman thought the Task Force would have a better chance of getting funded if it was more specific about identifying distinct items. Dr. Amerman responded that ARS prefers to know as much as possible about the specifics of what is required of the research.

Dr. Amerman said he understood the primary focus of the Task Force’s proposed research program to be pinpointing the emissions levels and sources of particulate matter from various agricultural components. Fundamental research is needed to allow ARS to understand how to approach some of these elements, but solutions are needed now, so Dr. Amerman felt they could not wait another three or four years for results. He proposed pulling together researchers, practitioners, and NRCS experts with the necessary understanding and experience to share current knowledge.

Bob Flocchini inquired about the rest of the ARS budget, and Dr. Amerman replied that the total ARS budget is around $900 million. The air quality area is within another subdivision of ARS called Natural Resources and Sustainable Ag Systems, which makes up only about 10 percent of the overall ARS budget. Dr. Amerman added that the commodity groups do an excellent job of supporting plant science and animal researchers, but there is no commodity group in natural resources.

Dr. Flocchini then asked how much willingness there was within ARS to change research priorities. Dr. Amerman responded that essentially every dollar of the $900 million is appropriated to a specific purpose, and the agency cannot convert it to air quality.

Dr. Flocchini commented that at some point every program, once it establishes that a problem exists and knows the causes, should be looking at remedies to that degradation.”

In response to Michael Unsworth’s question about prioritization, John Sweeten explained that in early 2000, ARS did convene a stakeholders’ meeting in Sacramento to begin a process of prioritizing ARS’s in-house research. That prioritization effort led to developing the work plan.

Beth Sauerhaft next introduced the only person making a public comment, Annette Sharp.  Ms. Sharp briefly presented a state regulator’s perspective on academic and applied research and their relationship to regulations. She said that academic research is very broad and therefore is less useful to states and regulators; applied research focuses on solving specific real-world problems. She said that the emission factors were needed six years ago.  The PM_2.5 and regional haze emissions inventories are going to be due soon, too, and we don’t have time to wait on the academic research.   We are also trying to prioritize research that’s going to achieve compliance with the Clean Air Act. This doesn’t preclude academic research, but it’s not a priority from the states’ standpoint.”

Ms. Sharp went on to assert, “In the absence of accurate emission factors, the states will use what they have at their disposal to generate their emissions inventories. The same numbers that generate emissions inventories are going to be put into permits that will then control agricultural processes and operations.

Mr. Cunha then asked if the five-year plan is being developed jointly by ARS, CSREES, and NRCS, or only by ARS. Dr. Amerman clarified that the Partnership Management Team, which consists of people from all three agencies, is pulling together the research needs of NRCS and finding approaches for meeting those needs. That team is not associated with the five-year air quality plan, which has been developed by the ARS scientists involved in the air quality program.

Gary Margheim suggested that the review panel members be given copies of the Task Force’s one-page summary of research priorities, and Dr. Amerman agreed.

Phil Wakelyn asked how many Task Force members were invited to submit qualifications for the review panel. Dr. Amerman did not know, but he did say that he had submitted the name of every Task Force member with a doctoral degree because the scientific community would consider them qualified to be on the panel.

Dr. Wakelyn questioned how much of $6.5 million was actually being done that would be pertinent to agricultural air quality research.  Dr. Amerman responded that he derived the number by adding up what the ARS scientists told him they were doing when he surveyed the researchers.

Jim Trotter told Dr. Wakelyn that the Task Force was invited to take part in that stakeholders’ meeting on ARS research priorities in Sacramento. He and George Bluhm were speakers, and John Sweeten also attended. Mr. Trotter said he fielded many questions and met with the different subcommittees there to explain the Task Force’s priorities.

Mr. Trotter then introduced Ray Knighton, National Program Leader with CSREES. At the last meeting, Dr. Knighton told about a budget white paper process CSREES would be using to respond to some remarks that Secretary Veneman made at an Ag Outlook Conference. Dr. Knighton was made chair of the group preparing a white paper on developing a regulatory environment based on sound science. He shared that air quality was mentioned in the document as one of the top three priority issues that should go forward in CSREES’s budget. Much of the air quality information in the paper came directly from the Task Force and its recommendations. The white papers are posted on the CSREES website.

Dr. Knighton also reported that he received a fax from CSREES’s budget office requesting that he do a budget cross-cut on air quality.  Emmett Barker stated that USDA’s budget office was instructed to do a cross-cut of ARS, CSREES, Extension Service, and Forest Service to make sure there was no duplication in the effort to address the Task Force’s concerns.

At the last meeting, Dr. Knighton had indicated that it appeared as if the Washington State PM₁₀ Special Grant was in jeopardy of being lost in 2002, but it had stayed in place in the House’s appropriation language. He said there had also been some discussion about creating an air quality program in the National Research Initiative (NRI). The program was cut for 2001, but Dr. Knighton believed that CSREES would be going forward with a very similar idea for 2002. He said that if CSREES did receive any new NRI monies, they would appreciate recommendations from the Task Force for developing new programs within the NRI. Dr. Knighton also reported that he had received a verbal commitment from the CSREES Administrator for modest support of a National Academy of Science (NAS) study.

The last topic Dr. Knighton discussed was the Initiative for Future Agriculture and Food Systems (IFAFS) program for 2001. They received 750 proposals this year requesting $1.3 billion in research dollars. CSREES has approximately $120 million available, which includes some NAS and NSF money that was joined with the USDA money. They anticipate being able to fund approximately 60 to 65 research proposals out of those 750 that were submitted, two of which will be air quality-related projects. Unfortunately, the House is considering a bill to prohibit future funding of IFAFS. Dr. Knighton suggested that the Task Force voice support for IFAFS if they believe it to be an important arena for air quality work.

Annette Sharp asked if the researchers who received these IFAFS funds in the past could present their findings at a future Task Force meeting. Dr. Knighton thought the committee could certainly invite them.

Phil Wakelyn expressed the Task Force’s appreciation to CSREES for making agricultural air quality a part of these programs and for considering air quality proposals. Manuel Cunha also thanked Dr. Knighton for his efforts and for carrying the message of the Task Force to CSREES.

Mike Unsworth asked if ARS had yet named a replacement for Dr. Keith Saxton in PM₁₀ research in Pullman. Dr. Knighton and Dr. Amerman said applications were still being accepted.

Bob Avant requested that Dr. Knighton explain the House’s reasons for wanting to discontinue the IFAFS program. Dr. Knighton said the rationale was complicated but had nothing to do with the science being conducted within IFAFS. It was related to the Agriculture Appropriations Committee’s decisions about the appropriation process.

Dr. Sweeten thanked both Dr. Knighton and Dr. Amerman for staying on top of these developments and continuing to promote the Task Force’s interests.

Manuel Cunha reiterated a point Bob Flocchini raised earlier that morning: both ARS and CSREES need to re-evaluate some of the research they are funding to determine if further studies are really necessary. Dr. Knighton recognized the importance of Mr. Cunha’s point, and he said they do go through exercises of evaluating their research programs and prioritizing projects. Unfortunately, they do not have the money to complete work in the areas they already have on the books.

Bob Flocchini asked Dr. Knighton if internal or external review panels reviewed the competitive programs. Dr. Knighton answered that they typically hire a university researcher or perhaps an ARS scientist as a temporary USDA employee to manage the panel. That person would help identify a group of panelists that would match up with the subject matter of the proposals that were submitted—for example, with water quality or with plant protection. Dr. Knighton then clarified that the majority of the panelists are not USDA employees.

Dr. Flocchini inquired if USDA used an internal or external review when reviewing a program. Dr. Knighton replied that with respect to formula funds, the peer review is done on the campus, and they have to satisfy USDA that their individual Hatch projects or McIntyre status projects that are used to spend those formula funds have been adequately peer-reviewed. The agency then does an internal relevance review to make sure that the proposed project is relevant to USDA.

Dr. Knighton stated that the face of agricultural experiment stations have been changing all around the country because of the decrease in federal spending of the formula funds. The spending has not increased for 20 years, so the stations have had to seek out money from elsewhere to support these positions, and that money then drives where these positions are developed.

Bob Avant recalled comments made at the meeting in March that indicated there was a certain bias built into the review process with respect to new emerging areas, like air quality. A reviewer who is an entomologist or a soil scientist will probably not rate an air quality proposal as highly as one with which that person might be more familiar, because air quality is not a stand-alone area. Mr. Avant asked if this would continue to be a problem until air quality becomes a stand-alone area, and Dr. Knighton responded that a stand-alone program would be beneficial.  Dr. Knighton also indicated that one of the reasons they were able to fund a few air quality proposals this year was because when they crafted the request for proposals (RFP) for the animal waste program, they directed those with water quality-related animal waste proposals to submit to the water quality program, not to animal waste. This allowed the agency to elevate the issue of air quality and animal waste within that program.

To close the Research Subcommittee report, Jim Trotter thanked Dr. Knighton and Dr. Amerman for their input.

After a short break, Annette Sharp gave the report from the Emissions Factor Subcommittee. She started by having Sally Shaver introduce Phil Lorang from EPA’s Emissions Monitoring and Analysis Division. Ms. Sharp and Ms. Shaver invited Mr. Lorang to the meeting to give the Task Force an overall explanation of how EPA derives emission factors. Mr. Lorang presented general information on emission factors, including the AP-42 compilation of emission factors, and explained how they are best used for groups of sources, as when developing a broad air quality plan. Using a handout, he described the process for developing a new AP-42 emission factor, or revising an existing one, and then submitting it to EPA for review.

Mr. Lorang, Director of the Emissions Factor Inventory Group within the Emissions Monitoring and Analysis Division, then summarized the issues on which his staff in Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS) was working. He said they were not planning on doing much emission factor development because of limited resources and because the NAS study would be starting soon. EPA wants to understand what NAS will take on in its study before doing any of their own emission factor development. In the meantime, EPA plans to work on the time patterns of emissions of all types of agricultural operations, going beyond annual emissions to model the whole year—down to each month and week of the year—in an air quality model. They also plan to explore some seasonality issues and to improve the defaults used for moisture content when calculating emissions for an air quality model.

Mr. Lorang reported that EPA removed their national estimates of wind erosion from the national inventory because they decided that the annual numbers they were presenting were of no real use to anyone. They will be rethinking the wind erosion inventory.

One current emission factor project Mr. Lorang mentioned was in grain loading, where EPA is working in partnership with the grain loading industry. EPA is also reviewing Carnegie Mellon University’s ammonia inventory to understand as much as they can about their methods and results. Mr. Lorang indicated that the states may start using the Carnegie Mellon inventory. In addition, EPA will be working on updating their data on crop residue burning and revising the AP-42 emission factors for internal combustion engines. Finally, Mr. Lorang mentioned that EPA is preparing a national inventory compiled from submitted state inventories, as they do every three years.

Sally Shaver added briefly that the reason EPA is moving forward on issues like seasonality and some of the defaults is because of the current regional planning effort to address regional haze. A great deal of modeling and inventory work is being done, but EPA is not comfortable with some of those key emission factors, so they are making some adjustments to those for this initial modeling work.

Calvin Parnell remarked that changing AP-42 emission factors is a one- or two-year process, and in the meantime, many states continue to use old numbers. However, he said that EPA had a website where researchers can post their study results, and the states could use that in place of AP-42. Dr. Parnell thought using a website would be a faster way of getting information to other states for use with emission factors, emissions inventories, and permitting, and he asked Mr. Lorang if he would recommend such a process. Mr. Lorang replied that the website is what EPA calls its FYI section, where they put other people’s reports. He stated, “These reports are out there and some people are using them, so everybody ought to be able to see them equally, but they don’t have the same endorsement as AP-42.”

Bob Flocchini asked Mr. Lorang about the reports his department has on file, and he replied that if an AP-42 section or technical support document has a list of references, his office will generally have at least a paper copy, and they are starting to scan them as well.

With respect to evaluating the randomness of the data collected, Dr. Flocchini said that the sites where he and his team measured for emission factors were not random because they chose to cooperate with the agricultural industry and only take measurements where people would allow them onto their property. Dr. Flocchini admitted that this practice has a built-in bias, and he stated as much in his study report, but he added that it was “very, very difficult to do a random source selection in this area.” Mr. Lorang responded that this is why there are not many A-rated emission factors, since that randomness is an important part of getting an A factor.

Kelley Green said it is absolutely critical. Mr. Green also commented that the emission factors in AP-42 are averages.  Regulators at the state level are trying to write permits and they have to base their permits on maximums. If their only data source is AP-42, which is often the case, they are taking a number that EPA says is not to be a maximum, and they are making it a maximum because that is the unit they need to write a permit. This makes it even more important that the factor be as accurate as possible.”

With respect to the other sources of data, Mr. Green suggested that a statement be added to the beginning of AP-42 indicating that other numbers are available and that they may be used (and may be better) although they have not been pulled into AP-42.

Manuel Cunha expressed his concern that AP-42 is a document which misrepresents agriculture’s contribution to air pollution.  Mr. Cunha called on all agencies to work together to find a mechanism that is not bureaucratic and that will get those factors changed immediately.

Mr. Cunha also expressed his concern about having EPA research reviewed by other scientists who are also doing research for EPA. He felt such a peer review process would be perceived as biased.

Sally Shaver reiterated that EPA had removed from its website many of the numbers that it is no longer supporting. She then asked the Task Force to suggest ways EPA might help avoid situations where states are still using old numbers when new, better numbers are available.

Stephanie Whalen asked Phil Lorang how his group works with the EPA Air Quality Research Center in North Carolina. He answered that his program office communicated closely with the research office: “We know what they’re planning on studying, and we try to influence the relevancy of it. When they produce results, we do try to incorporate them.”

Dr. Whalen then inquired about the internal funding structure for work on emission factors, but Mr. Lorang did not feel qualified to describe it. He suggested asking someone from EPA’s Office of Research and Development. He did emphasize, however, that there are two lines of funding within the research office: an external grants program, which is competitive and administered by issuing RFPs, and internal projects conducted by EPA’s own researchers.

Sally Shaver interjected that Jim Vickery from the Office of Research and Development had spoken to the Task Force at a previous meeting, and he had outlined how the Committee on the Environment and Natural Resources coordinates research across agencies. She said that group had largely set the priorities for PM research. To respond to Dr. Whalen’s question about how the Task Force’s recommended funding effort would be allocated, Ms. Shaver said part of that would depend on the wording in the appropriations bill.

Wayne Robarge inquired whether the current AP-42 emission factors are averaged values, or intended to represent an average, and Phil Lorang answered that they are the average of the available test data that seemed valid. Dr. Robarge then asked if it was true that the emissions factors were intended to represent a larger population. Mr. Lorang replied that they work best when used that way instead of applying them to just one farm. He said, “The people who built AP-42 knew that the emission factors were going to be used for estimates for individual facilities, so it is rather misleading to say that they were never intended to be used that way. Of course that was one of their foreseen uses, since many times that is the only possible way to do an estimate.”

Next, Dr. Robarge asked Mr. Lorang to confirm that the degree of uncertainty is simply a letter score, and that no numerical values are associated with the factors in terms of their numerical uncertainties. Mr. Lorang responded that some sections may have ranges or even standard deviations, but most of them present only an average with a letter score. The technical support document for these sections also indicates the range of the sources tested, which gives a sense of the possible range when applied to an individual facility.

As his last question, Dr. Robarge asked if he had correctly understood Kelley Green to say that someone was required to file an estimate of their maximum emissions. Mr. Green clarified that when someone has to file a permit, the permit issued must indicate that it is good for X pounds an hour and Y tons a year, and no more than that: “Permit emissions are limits, not averages.” Dr. Robarge concluded, “Well, then I wouldn’t use an average emission factor to come up with that value,” to which Sally Shaver quickly responded, “Herein lies the problem.”

Dr. Robarge suggested having several different types of emission factors to address the different requirements for permitting purposes. Mr. Lorang added that the EPA should also think ahead about how actual emissions will be compared to the permit limit. If one has a permit limit and does a source test to see if one met that limit, then the reality of that limit is very important. Mr. Lorang explained, “If you’re going to set a source limit and then test compliance by taking numbers of widgets times the same emission factor you used to get the permit, then the fact it was an average may not affect the fairness of the compliance test.”

Kelley Green commented that this led to a very important point: “When you deal with major industry, which is what has been permitted over many years, you often come up with a factor, and you do a source test. Source testing a power plant is not very expensive, but for small businesses, source testing becomes economically unfeasible. That mindset is difficult to overcome, especially in states that are just starting to permit really small sources.”

In response to Dr. Robarge’s question about how the emission factors are meant to be used, Roger Isom offered an example from California. He said that in some situations, EPA Region 9 staff has actually rejected permits because they did not meet AP-42 emission factor levels. California does source testing and thus did not want to use the average values for the permits. Therefore, they had to develop their own emission factor document with ranges included in order to get past that problem.

Mr. Isom then asked Mr. Lorang how his agency determines the priorities for AP-42. Mr. Isom recalled that Mr. Lorang had mentioned seasonality, and Mr. Isom believed that in many situations seasonality might be more important than the emission factor. Mr. Lorang responded that setting priorities was basically “a matter of judgment and conversations among a number of experienced people.” He said that EPA’s first priorities are those sources for which they know there is a body of test data available, as well as “what the outside world is asking for.”

Mr. Isom mentioned that over the last two years, Fresno State, NASA Ames, and the Air Resources Board have done quite a bit of research on ammonia from fertilizer, and he asked if those results are being looked at for AP-42. Mr. Lorang replied that this work is not in their current program plan, but if they get budget funding continued next year and it seems to be a priority, it might be added. He said the decision would be made by himself, Dave Mobley, the people working with Sally Shaver on agricultural issues within EPA, and the people working on PM or ozone issues. Ms. Shaver added that it would be very helpful if somebody would submit to her the results of that study, along with the data and the supporting information, since EPA might not be aware of what Fresno State was doing.

Mr. Isom wondered if there were some mechanism for sharing new information and new studies so that they could filter their way through to the agencies. Mr. Lorang said EPA does try to keep up with what researchers are doing by sponsoring an emission inventory conference every year and participating in AWMA (Air & Waste Management Association), interstate organizations, and regional planning bodies. He commented that work going on in the academic world is more likely to escape EPA’s notice than the work of the air agencies because until it gets published, EPA may not even realize what is going on there.

Emmett Barker asked what number the regulators are supposed to use when EPA takes an emission factor off of the list. Mr. Lorang indicated that some of them use the last printed copy of the AP-42 document that still included that section in it. Others contact his office, and if his staff knows of new literature, they point them to it. He said that many of the air agencies that know they have to address these issues have found some way of dealing with them or are engaged actively with the industry stakeholders to determine which emission factor to use.

Mr. Barker then inquired, “Has it occurred to EPA that it might make some sense to hold up on some of these regulations until you have some viable data? You require the regulators to write a report and make a judgment on this and do a permit, but you can’t give them any information, and you can only refer them to some data. They have the opportunity to choose any number they wish, but we who would be regulated have absolutely no standing to argue with the number that they use.”

Sally Shaver replied that sometimes EPA does have the option to hold up some of these regulations. However, they have to deal with many statutory deadlines, and oftentimes they have to make a decision without all the information they would like. She stated, “Where we can wait, we probably should, and work on the issue a little bit longer. Overall, we try to be responsive to that timing, but if there are some things that we could do better, we’d be very open to suggestions.”

Mr. Barker asked what remedies were available to the impacted people to enable EPA to go beyond the statutory deadlines, and Ms. Shaver answered that it depended on the statute. Some of the statutes have penalties built into them if the deadline is missed, and those have repercussions for the states and industry. Some of the other deadlines might be missed by a few months and nothing would ever happen. However, some missed deadlines can result in lawsuits and then settlement discussions.

Ms. Shaver was not sure how to correct the problem of emission factors being used for planning purposes, but she said that there are many, many numbers that go into a SIP or into these processes, and there is no way an AA or an office director or division leader can touch every number. We rely on industry to look at your numbers and give them that scrutiny.

Calvin Parnell commented that great care must be taken with emission factors because each one is a “two-edged sword.” It is used for emissions inventory, where they want the average number. It is used for permitting purposes, where they want an upper limit. It is also used for modeling to determine concentration at the property line, and there they want a lone number that is a little bit larger than average. Dr. Parnell stated, “We’re looking for accuracy, and we’re looking for appropriate numbers that accurately reflect each particular industry.”

Kelley Green told Mr. Lorang that the Task Force was very interested in emission factors and in finding good numbers based on sound science. Mr. Green encouraged Mr. Lorang to call on the Task Force and its members for any help needed in his efforts with emissions factors. Mr. Lorang thanked Mr. Green for the offer.

Bob Avant asked if a disclaimer was placed in the AP-42 document to clearly inform readers that the numbers presented are averages and may not necessarily be appropriate for use in permitting processes or as a basis for litigation. Mr. Lorang replied that AP-42 already has such a disclaimer.

After a break, Annette Sharp continued the Emission Factors Subcommittee report. She said that some of the charges of the Emission Factors Subcommittee are to identify problems with existing emission factors (AP-42 and other emission factors that are specific to agriculture) and to attempt to collate information on new and emerging research. Ms. Sharp said the subcommittee held five conference calls and a meeting in the hotel lobby to get things underway.

The subcommittee would also like to identify other research and researchers, and eventually be able to offer all the research on emission factors in one place. Ms. Sharp said Wayne Robarge received permission from his department chair at North Carolina State University to use some of their computer space, so Dr. Robarge will begin to populate and maintain a research database where all of the researchers’ reports that are at the back of AP-42 factors will be provided in one location. Ms. Sharp invited the Task Force members to share their research related to emissions factors on the new website.

Another charge for the subcommittee is to suggest some priorities for emission factor development. Ms. Sharp passed out a draft of a survey form that the subcommittee will be using to collect information related to setting emission factor priorities. They hope to complete a final draft by July 31, 2001, and then they will test the survey form on a group suggested by John Sweeten. The subcommittee plans to revise and complete their final survey form by September 15 and send it out by September 30. They anticipate being able to put the survey form on the NCSU website and possibly on the Agricultural Air Quality Task Force website.

Phil Lorang also indicated that they plan to disseminate the survey to a group of individuals that they work with on emissions inventories and emission factors, as well as others in the air quality industry. The subcommittee will close the date for accepting survey responses on November 30, 2001, compile the results from that survey by December, and share their findings with the Task Force by January of 2002.

Ms. Sharp said that by having a priority list of emission factor development, the subcommittee hoped to help identify the specific areas for research once the funds are secured. The subcommittee would also like to provide a guide to researchers in the development of emission factors for agricultural processes.

Manuel Cunha thanked Ms. Sharp and the committee for their hard work, and he commended them for their progress. Gary Margheim agreed.

Next on the agenda was the report from the Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFO) Subcommittee. Subcommittee Co-Chair John Sweeten said that AAQTF Chairman Pearlie Reed had charged the subcommittee with developing a work plan. After passing out a draft of the work plan and recognizing all those who had contributed to it, Dr. Sweeten asked Co-Chair Michael Unsworth to present the plan to the Task Force. Dr. Unsworth stated that the charge of the subcommittee was to maintain an overview of developments in and characterizations of measurements of emissions from animal feed operations, to review issues like developments in economically-achievable control technology and management of processes, to look at dispersion modeling to see what the concentrations of emissions will be at the boundary line of the facility, and to examine operating policies and practice.

The pollutants the subcommittee is examining are odor, VOCs, PM₁₀ and PM_2.5, the ammonia emissions associated with PM_2.5, the greenhouse gases carbon dioxide and methane, which may be associated with the operations, and pathogens. The subcommittee’s action plan has four components:

1.      To track and review currently emerging issues, such as policy developments, research developments, and specific issues that are emerging at regional levels, and to advise the Task Force at its meetings

2.      To review the current knowledge base

3.      To promote Task Force activities in other arenas by encouraging other researchers to consider how their research might apply to these specific CAFO problems and perhaps organizing workshops or specialist meetings to brainstorm about newly-emerging topics

4.      To enhance outreach and communication of information about such issues as best management practices, research needs and opportunities, and funding requests, and to facilitate and participate in parallel operations, especially the National Academy of Sciences study.

Phil Wakelyn noticed that both greenhouse gases and pathogens were on the list, but neither are hazardous air pollutants or criteria pollutants that are regulated under the Clean Air Act. He asked if this meant that the subcommittee had decided to go beyond what is regulated presently by EPA to address anything that can be in the atmosphere. Dr. Unsworth answered that it was his personal feeling that the group would be remiss if they did not keep track of these emerging issues, which may eventually become regulated under other mechanisms. He stressed, however, that the main focus of their attention would be on the issues that currently exists under the Clean Air Act. Dr. Sweeten agreed: “Whether they are regulated or not, these are issues and questions that the public is talking about, and so we put them down as things we’re going to at least be in a position to address should the need arise.”

Emmett Barker complimented the subcommittee on their excellent work, and then he asked how the full committee might best support the subcommittee in their outreach efforts. He inquired if certain people would be assuming specific responsibilities to implement the plan. Dr. Unsworth responded that the subcommittee plans to set up sub-subcommittees of two or three experts with particular experience in the different topic areas. He also opened up the sub‑subcommittees to others on the Task Force who might wish to participate in those operations. Dr. Unsworth indicated that the CAFO subcommittee would also be coordinating with the Emission Factors Subcommittee to avoid duplication of activities.

Dr. Sweeten moved that the Task Force accept the CAFO Subcommittee’s work plan as a fulfillment of Chairman Pearlie Reed’s request, and that the subcommittee begin to organize its activities to pursue the plan. Numerous people seconded the motion. Hearing no further discussion, Acting Chair Gary Margheim called for the question; the motion carried.

As the next item of the CAFO Subcommittee report, Dr. Sweeten invited Sally Shaver to talk about a National Academy of Sciences Assessment Request. Ms. Shaver presented the Task Force with a one-page document entitled “Scientific Assessment for Air Emissions and Controls for Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations,” which outlines EPA’s current progress on control measures and emission factors, ways to monitor and ways to model air emissions for CAFOs. EPA is now in the process of putting together a contract with the NAS to perform a review of literature on emissions and control measures related to CAFOs, and to recommend approaches for monitoring and measuring emissions from these sites. Ms. Shaver described the process and timeframe for the NAS work, and explained that it would be moved along a fast track because “the public is raising many concerns to EPA and the states, and we need to move this as expeditiously as possible to address those issues.” She said that when the work plan for NAS was completed, EPA would present it to the subcommittee.

Wayne Robarge asked if the initial statement of work being negotiated included a clear definition of which NAS committee would conduct the review. Ms. Shaver answered yes, and then Randy Waite from Ms. Shaver’s staff added that the work would be run through the National Research Council Committee on Air Emissions from Animal Feeding Operations.

Viney Aneja inquired about the committee chair and the panel membership for the review, and Ms. Shaver said they would probably be determined after the scope of work is finalized. She promised she would share the membership list with the Task Force for input.

Emmett Barker requested a list of staff in EPA and USDA who are working on CAFO-related issues. Ms. Shaver agreed to prepare the list of EPA staff, and Gary Margheim said he and George Bluhm would create one for USDA.

Phyllis Woodford asked if the Academy would also make recommendations on the financial requirements to do this work, and if they would match dollars to complete the task. Ms. Shaver answered no; EPA, USDA, and hopefully some of the industry would be helping fund the effort.

Ms. Woodford then asked Ms. Shaver to expand a bit on the initial regulatory policy determination. Ms. Shaver replied that there is no guarantee that there will be a regulation, but given the size of some of the CAFOs, it is very likely that some of them will trigger major source definition under the Clean Air Act. The initial decisions then will be which parts of the operation are covered in terms of accounting for the emissions, what will constitute a facility for these, and what are and are not fugitive emissions.

Ms. Woodford asked if the initial determinations will consider a standard for hydrogen sulfide or PM_2.5 and ammonia. Ms. Shaver answered no, explaining that hydrogen sulfide is not a hazardous air pollutant (HAP), so the only way EPA regulates it right now for CAFO sources is through the PM determinations and through Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) permitting. Ms. Woodford recalled, however, that in a presentation Ms. Shaver gave a year or so ago, she said she had expected hydrogen sulfide to be listed in the next year or year and a half. Ms. Shaver clarified that the Agency has yet to make a decision on listing hydrogen sulfide, and they are about nine months away from having the information from their research and development office that will inform that decision. After that, the program office will have to work it through the system and determine whether or not it should be listed. Once a source is listed as a hazardous air pollutant, EPA has two years to develop a MACT standard.

Calvin Parnell asked Ms. Shaver if she thought the National Academy of Sciences might make a recommendation to use fugitive emissions to determine the classification of major sources. Ms. Shaver replied that EPA is not asking NAS that question because it was more of a policy determination. She said EPA will be asking questions more like “What are emissions from barns?” and “Is this literature information appropriate to that type of activity?”

Emmett Barker inquired if the intent of the four- to five-year research timeframe is to start getting the results of the research sometime after four to five years, and Ms. Shaver answered yes. Mr. Barker then put forth a hypothetical situation: “Let’s say that Annette Sharp has to file her SIP in the next year or so, and she uses some of the old emissions data. How does this SIP get revised and updated to take advantage of new research—research that we’re trying to complete and then use to change the regulatory impact or effect in the future? Is that going to be a long, drawn-out process, or is Ms. Sharp’s state stuck forever? How is new research incorporated into the new regulatory process for SIPs?”

Ms. Shaver invited Ms. Sharp to respond, and she said that the outcome would depend on how aggressive the state was about revising and updating their SIP. Each state is supposed to revise its SIP and rules annually, and that is when it could incorporate a change in its emissions inventory and control strategies. Ms. Shaver then added that in the hypothetical situation, EPA would put out a policy statement or memo to the region, and then the states would follow through on the State Implementation Plans (SIPs).

Viney Aneja mentioned that the one-page document specifies developing for the NAS review a four- to five-year research plan, which will be ready by July 2002. He asked if EPA, USDA, or AAQTF has resources to implement the plan after July of 2002, or if new resources need to be generated. Ms. Shaver replied that EPA does not have the budget set aside to do the follow-up, so it will be new resources and also perhaps some that are shifted to CAFO issues from other programs. The PM fine SIPs probably will not be required until 2007 or 2008, so there is more time to secure new resources for that work.

Jim Trotter mentioned a number of lawsuits that have been brought under HAP rules because of emissions from lagoons, and yet Ms. Shaver had said that H₂S is not a HAP. Mr. Trotter asked Ms. Shaver to clarify, to which she replied that the Clean Air Act-related lawsuits of which she was aware are usually Title V issues associated with permitting. She explained that hydrogen sulfide falls under that permitting process as part of PM, and ammonia is listed under reportable quantities under the EPCRA/CERCLA rule.

John Sweeten told the group that one of the subcommittee members, Jerold Master of Arkansas Pork Producers, could not attend the Task Force meeting, but he had asked Dr. Sweeten to express his very strong support for the NAS study.

Dr. Sweeten then moved that the Task Force adopt a resolution endorsing the NAS study as being an important fact-finding component in achieving the missions of this Task Force. Someone seconded the motion. Gary Margheim asked for discussion, but someone called for the question. The motion carried.

Next, Dr. Sweeten handed out a summary of five air quality-related white papers that were currently being prepared by the National Center for Manure and Animal Waste Management based at North Carolina State University, and then he introduced Viney Aneja. Dr. Aneja led a delegation that went to France in May 2001 on behalf of the U.S. State Department. He and Dr. David Bruton, former Secretary of Health and Human Services in North Carolina, were sent to deal with environmental issues associated with intensively managed swine agriculture. Professor John Clausen of North Carolina State University joined them to work with emerging technologies. The objective of the delegation was to exchange science and technology to promote U.S. business interests around the world, as is the mission of the U.S. State Department. In his presentation, Dr. Aneja compared and contrasted the current technology in North Carolina for managing swine waste with that of France, and he discussed the environmental consequences of both methods.

In order to allow sufficient time for the public comment period, Dr. Sweeten suggested suspending discussion of Dr. Aneja’s presentation until the following day.

For the last minute of the CAFO Subcommittee report, Dr. Sweeten had Phyllis Woodford give a quick update on recent developments with state regulations for CAFOs. Ms. Woodford reported that North Dakota now has an odor rule that is specific to CAFOs. They use an odor standard of two to one, which she said is a fairly stringent standard. They also have a hydrogen sulfide standard of 0.05 parts per million. Ms. Woodford added that North Dakota’s rule is complaint-driven.

North Carolina recently implemented odor rules for animal feeding operations, and they require some best management practices for operations that have lagoons or use spray irrigation systems to land apply effluent. The North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources will be making some odor determinations based on personal observations, and they’re going to be doing some health studies. Ms. Woodford said North Carolina’s process is also complaint-driven.

Oklahoma is currently drafting an odor rule and hopes to have something by August or September of 2001. Missouri is also in the process of developing some rules, but Ms. Woodford said she had only very vague information as to what those rules are. Missouri requires a plan for animal feeding operations but it is more water quality related.

As had been mentioned earlier in the meeting, California has a proposed fugitive dust rule. Some of the local districts are drafting the rule, which could pull in agriculture with respect to unpaved roads and service areas. Finally, Ms. Woodford mentioned that her own state of Colorado now has a general permit for animal feeding operations, but it is a water quality regulation, as are some of the other CAFO-related developments in other states.

With respect to the earlier conversation on revising SIPs, Ms. Woodford said that in Colorado, oftentimes changing and revising SIPs and rules depends on resources and also on workload. “It’s not just based on our aggressiveness,” she commented; “there can be many other issues that stand in the way.”

Gary Margheim announced the following day’s meeting would start at 8:15 instead of 8:30 a.m. to allow at least 15 minutes for the Task Force to ask questions of Dr. Aneja.

Dr. Margheim then called on Manuel Cunha to give the Title V Subcommittee report. Mr. Cunha started by commending Sally Shaver and John Seitz, Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards in the Office of Air and Radiation, EPA, for being instrumental in getting the Task Force’s letter concerning Title V (drafted in March) into the hands of EPA. He said that EPA Region 9 is working with the California Air Resources Board to make those air districts deemed complete with their permits.

Next, Mr. Cunha reported that John Seitz requested that the Task Force appoint a subcommittee to evaluate how various areas of agriculture fall under the entire Clean Air Act of 1990. Mr. Cunha recommended that the Task Force make a formal motion to charge the Title V subcommittee to move aggressively on this issue with EPA. He added that Sally Shaver, John Seitz, and Jean-Mari Peltier would work with the Task Force Title V group to evaluate the entire issue of agriculture under the Clean Air Act and make a recommendation, hopefully by the beginning of 2002. EPA has indicated that this would assist them in meeting the December 2001 deadline for the Title V applications. Ms. Shaver added that the evaluation would be a bit broader than just looking at Title V, but that is one area of the current act with problem points.

Phil Wakelyn asked Ms. Shaver if the act of defining how agriculture should be regulated under the Clean Air Act was something that could be done internally as a guidance, or did it require some type of Federal Register notice. Ms. Shaver replied that there have been some issues, such as fugitive emissions definitions and crop tilling emissions that have “surprised” EPA regulators. For this reason, John Seitz has requested that the Task Force subcommittee provide him with some feedback concerning those particular areas.

Phil Wakelyn mentioned that the Title V document that the Task Force prepared at the last meeting raises the issues of agriculture not really being a fixed facility or a mobile source, and therefore not strictly defined in the Clean Air Act. He asked if the subcommittee would be considering problems such as these, including how to look at things like irrigation pumps and differences between one-acre farms and 100,000-acre farms. Ms. Shaver answered yes; they wanted some input on different ways of looking at farms and agricultural elements, and then an evaluation of the various interpretations.

Emmett Barker suggested that the subcommittee consider contacting Gary Baise of the Equipment Manufacturers Institute as a legal consultant or resource person, since he wrote much of the language of the original EPA regulations.

Phyllis Woodford asked if the subcommittee would create a document or report that the Task Force would then approve and pass along to EPA. Gary Margheim responded that the Title V subcommittee is one that USDA’s Deputy Undersecretary specifically requested after the controversy over permitting. He remarked, “You have a lot of authority right now under this subcommittee to do exactly what you’re suggesting and should therefore pursue it. It’s very important, though, that it come back for discussion in the full committee for public disclosure.”

Phil Wakelyn asked if the Task Force’s previous document on Title V would be used as a starting point for the subcommittee’s discussions, and both Ms. Shaver and Dr. Margheim replied yes. Manuel Cunha added that John Seitz did look at the document and that was what raised the questions and the concerns.

Dr. Margheim reminded everybody that the Task Force’s purpose is to make recommendations to the Secretary and the Administrator, particularly to ensure that there is credible science behind policy decisions: “What is done with those recommendations is another issue.”

Mr. Cunha asked if this meant that no motion was required, and Dr. Margheim said he did not think so. He believed the existing subcommittee already had the necessary authority to move forward. Mr. Cunha then stated that they would work with Dr. Margheim, George Bluhm, and the Task Force staff to move ahead quickly. Dr. Margheim concurred, declaring that this effort could have a significant impact on the agricultural community, and should therefore proceed fairly rapidly.

Next, Dr. Margheim called on Beth Sauerhaft to commence the public comment period. The first speaker was Adam Sharp with American Farm Bureau. Mr. Sharp shared some thoughts on the scientific review of agricultural air quality emissions, indicating that many agricultural groups, including the Farm Bureau, have been supportive of this effort and want to see it move forward in a timely fashion. In response to an earlier comment by Phyllis Woodford, Mr. Sharp stated that the solutions that come out of the NAS review or any scientific assessment may be not necessarily always need to be regulatory.

Ms. Sharp then mentioned that the Farm Bill debate was up again, and since the Task Force was created out of a provision that was in the 1996 Farm Bill, perhaps there should be another similar provision in the next Farm Bill.

Phyllis Woodford invited Vickie Idler of the Colorado Grain and Feed Association to make a few quick comments, and then Dr. Margheim adjourned the meeting for the day.