Common use of LIST OF FIGURES Clause in Contracts

LIST OF FIGURES. Figure Page Figure 2 1. Aerial View of IN5A 2-12 Figure 2 2. Aerial View of WA5A 2-14 Figure 2 3. Aerial View of WI5A 2-15 Figure 2 4. Aerial View of IN4A 2-16 Figure 2 5. Aerial View of NC4A 2-17 Figure 2 6. Aerial View of OK4A 2-18 Figure 2 7. Aerial View of IA3A 2-19 Figure 2 8. Aerial View of NC3A 2-20 Figure 2 9. Aerial View of OK3A 2-21 Figure 5 1. EEM Development Protocol 5-3 Figure 5 2. Histogram of NH3 Emissions 5-20 Figure 5 3. Histogram of NH3 Emissions by Temperature Bin 5-22 Figure 5 4. Histogram of NH3 Emissions by Temperature and Wind Speed Bins 5-23 Figure 5 5. Shapes of Gamma Distribution for Different Parameter Values 5-24 Figure 5 6. NH3 Emissions vs. Temperature, by Animal Type (color-coded by site) 5-27 Figure 5 7. Scatter Plots of NH3 Emissions vs. Temperature, by Wind Speed Bin (wsbin) 5-29 Figure 5 8. Scatter Plots of NH3 Emissions vs. Temperature, by Relative Humidity Bin 5-30 Figure 5 9. NH3 Emissions vs. Relative Humidity, by Animal Type (color-coded by site) 5-31 Figure 5 10. NH3 Emissions vs. Relative Humidity, by Temperature Bin 5-32 Figure 5 11. NH3 Emissions vs. Relative Humidity, by Wind Speed Bin 5-33 Figure 5 12. NH3 Emissions vs. Wind Speed, by Animal Type (color-coded by site) 5-35 Figure 5 13. NH3 Emissions vs. Wind Speed, by Temperature Bin 5-36 Figure 5 14. NH3 Emissions vs. Wind Speed, by Relative Humidity Bin 5-37 Figure 5 15. Box Plots of NH3 Emissions vs. Hour 5-38 Figure 5 16. Summary Statistics for NH3 Emissions vs. Hour 5-39 Figure 5 17. Box Plots of Temperature vs. Hour 5-40 Figure 5 18. Box Plots of Humidity vs. Hour 5-41 Figure 5 19. NH3 Emissions vs. ▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇ 5-42 Figure 5 20. Percent and Number of Observations per Month 5-43 Figure 5 21. Histogram of NH3 Emissions by Animal Type 5-49 Figure 5 22. Histogram of NH3 Emissions by Animal Type and Site 5-50 Figure 5 23. Histogram of Month by Animal Type and Site 5-51 In 2005, the EPA offered animal feeding operations (AFOs) an opportunity to participate in a voluntary consent agreement referred to as the Air Compliance Agreement (Agreement) (70 FR 4958). Under the Agreement, participating AFOs provided the funding for the National Air Emissions Monitoring Study (NAEMS) – a two-year, nationwide emissions monitoring study of animal confinement structures and manure storage and treatment units in the broiler, egg-layer, swine, and dairy industries. The purpose of this study was to gather emissions data that would be used by the EPA to develop emissions-estimating methodologies (EEMs). The EEMs will be used by the AFO industry to estimate daily and annual emissions for use in determining their regulatory responsibilities under the Clean Air Act (CAA), the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) and the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA). The NAEMS began in the summer of 2007 and consisted of 25 monitoring sites located in 9 states. Because the monitoring plan and quality assurance procedures were developed to be consistent with the NAEMS, the EPA also considered a monitoring study of two Kentucky broiler operations conducted by Tyson Foods from 2006 to 2007 to be an integral part of the NAEMS. In accordance with the Agreement, the EPA developed EEMs for animal housing structures and manure storage and treatment units using the emissions and process data collected under the NAEMS and other relevant information submitted to the EPA in response to its Call for Information (76 FR 3060). This report presents the background information, data collected, data analyses performed, statistical approach taken and the EEMs developed by the EPA for dairy and swine basins and lagoons. In the NAEMS documentation, the terms “lagoon” and “basin” were used inconsistently to describe the impoundments at the various monitoring sites. Although the EPA acknowledges that there might be differences between a lagoon and a basin (e.g., the degree of microbial activity), the term “lagoon” is used throughout this report to refer to lagoons and basins. The EPA developed the EEMs using emissions and process information collected from nine lagoon monitoring sites across the country. Monitoring was conducted at three dairy farms located in Indiana, Washington and Wisconsin. Monitoring was also conducted at six swine farms: three breeding/gestation operations and three grow/finish operations. The breeding/gestation operations were located in Iowa, North Carolina and Oklahoma. The grow/finish operations were located in Indiana, North Carolina and Oklahoma. At the dairy and swine sites in Indiana, monitoring was conducted continuously for one year. The remaining seven sites were monitored for up to 21 days each season for two years by a team of researchers that moved sequentially from farm to farm. The EPA used the emissions and process information collected at the nine study sites and SAS® statistical software to develop the NH3 EEMs. Because of the limited number of some data values and gaps in coverage of seasonal meteorological conditions across monitoring sites, the EPA evaluated the combined dairy and swine data when developing the lagoon EEMs. This approach was taken to allow the effects of meteorological conditions on lagoon NH3 emissions at a given site to inform the EEM for a site where meteorological data was limited. For example, limited data were submitted to the EPA for dairy lagoons at high ambient temperatures. By evaluating the dairy and swine data simultaneously, the EEM for dairy lagoons could be informed by the variability in swine emissions data that are available for the missing dairy lagoon temperatures. The EPA developed three types of EEMs that include as predictor variables a combination of ambient meteorological data (e.g., temperature, relative humidity) that were continuously monitored and categorical (i.e., static) data that characterize the farm and lagoon configuration (i.e., animal type, farm capacity, lagoon surface area). The three EEMs resulted from the paired combinations of categorical farm and lagoon variables (i.e., animal type/surface area, animal type/farm size, farm size/surface area). Each EEM produces a point prediction (i.e., mean) of NH3 emissions for a 30-minute period for a given set of input data. The animal type/farm size and animal type/surface area EEMs produce different emissions for swine and dairy lagoons. The EEMs also produce a 95-percent prediction interval to quantify uncertainty around the point prediction. The EEMs can be used to provide daily and annual estimates of NH3 emissions from dairy and swine lagoons. The EPA is currently developing EEMs for H2S emissions. However, due to the very limited amount of H2S emissions and process data available, the EPA is interested on obtaining feedback on the approach used for the NH3 EEMs before completing development of the H2S EEMs. Because VOC emissions data were not submitted to the EPA, EEMs for this pollutant were not developed. The EPA was unable to develop EEMs for VOCs, as the data for lagoon sources was not received.