N.C. Division of Pollution Prevention and

Environmental Assistance

Department of Environment and Natural Resources

_____________________________________

Environmental Management Systems

for Pork Producers

Final Report

_______________________________________________________

_____________________________________

February 2004 _____________________________________

1639 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1639 Telephone: (919) 715-6500; FAX: (919) 715-6794

TABLE OF CONTENTS

BACKGROUND ·············································································· 1 PROJECT OVERVIEW ··································································· 2 PARTNERSHIPS ············································································ 2 Co-Coaching ··················································································· 2 Coaches Training ············································································ 3 PILOT FARMS ················································································ 4 Selection ························································································· 4 EMS Design and Implementation···················································· 5 Training ··························································································· 6 EMS TOOLS ··················································································· 7 EMS Online Guidance····································································· 7 Aspects Impacts Manager (AIM) ···················································· 9 EMS BENEFITS············································································ 10 EMS CHALLENGES····································································· 11 PARTICIPANT TESTIMONIALS ·················································· 12 LESSONS LEARNED··································································· 13 FUTURE OUTREACH EFFORTS················································· 14 APPENDIX A – COACHING MATERIALS Expectations of EMS Coaches. ····················································· 17 Swine Production 101 Agenda ······················································ 18 EMS Coaches Training Agenda ···················································· 19 Pork Producer Coaches Evaluation··············································· 20 CES Letter of Support ··································································· 21 APPENDIX B – SELECTION PROCESS Swine Advisory Committee Meeting Agenda ································ 24 Request for Grant Application ······················································· 25 EMS for Pork Producers Score Sheet ··········································· 29 EMS Grant Award Press Release ················································· 31 APPENDIX C – SAMPLE POLICIES AND PROCEDURES EMS Policy Samples – English and Spanish ································ 33 Nursery Pit Drain and Recharge - English and Spanish················ 34

APPENDIX D – PRODUCERS TRAINING N.C. Pork Producers EMS Kick-Off Meeting Agenda···················· 37 Agenda for Swine EMS Auditing Training ····································· 38 Auditor’s Toolkit Description·························································· 39 Pork Producers Audit Training Evaluations ··································· 40 EMS for Pork Producers Workshop brochure ······························· 41 EMS for Pork Producers Workshop agenda·································· 43 EMS for Pork Producers Evaluation Form····································· 44 EMS for Pork Producers Evaluation Summary······························ 46

APPENDIX E – TOOLS EMS for Pork Producers Tool Press Release ······························· 49 Sample Screens from Aspects Impacts Manager ························· 50

BACKGROUND

In 1992 the opening of a large pork processing plant in North Carolina contributed to a significant increase in the number of hogs being raised in the state. While North Carolina had been a major pork producer for decades, the number produced more than doubled within four years of the pork processing plant opening. Today, North Carolina is home to more hogs than people, with about 9.6 million hogs being raised. This large production increase led to environmental concerns about groundwater contamination, odors and surface water pollution from lagoons and spray fields, and prompted increased regulation and scrutiny of the North Carolina pork production industry.

Recognizing that regulation alone would not lead to the needed level of environmental protection, interest increased in improved technologies and management practices. One area of interest was the implementation of environmental management systems (EMS) on hog farms. Following the adoption of ISO 14001 as an international standard in 1996, there was a steady growth in the implementation of this standard by organizations representing different sectors. Nationally, there was a growing interest from agriculture and agribusiness to begin looking at an EMS model for their sectors. In summer 2000, the North Carolina attorney general signed a voluntary agreement with Smithfield Foods outlining innovative steps that would be taken to enhance environmental protection. One of the requirements included in the agreement was implementation of a third-party certified ISO 14001 system at all company-owned hog farms, amounting to nearly 300 farms. In fall 2000, North Carolina’s attorney general signed a second voluntary agreement with Premium Standard requiring ISO 14001 be adopted at its company-owned farms as well. These voluntary agreements sought to achieve compliance as well as beyond compliance activity using an EMS model. As a result of the North Carolina agreements, a large number of company-owned farms began implementing and certifying an EMS. In November 2001, Murphy-Brown (Smithfield Foods) became the world’s first livestock company to have its swine production farms receive the ISO 14001 certification. Contract and independent farms were not covered by these agreements. Smithfield and Premium Standard company-owned farms represented approximately 25 percent of the active farms in North Carolina. The remaining farms needed assistance, tools and training to better manage their environmental impacts. In response to these needs, the N.C. Division of Pollution Prevention and Environmental Assistance (DPPEA), working cooperatively with the N.C. Cooperative Extension Service (CES), hosted an EMS for Agribusiness workshop in December 2000. In addition, DPPEA with CES sought and was granted funding from the U.S. EPA’s Office of Water to work with North Carolina pork producers to design and implement EMSs into small livestock farm operations.

1

PROJECT OVERVIEW The project began in May 2001 with a goal of selecting up to seven pork producers that would serve as pilot farms for EMS design and implementation. The information gathered and tools developed would be made available on a national scale to assist other pork producers develop EMSs and to more fully educate regulatory staff and others about EMS potential benefits. Partnering with other agencies, especially CES and the N.C. Division of Soil and Water Conservation (DSWC), was a vital component of the project. Key activities to organization and successful implementation of the project included: • partnering with CES and DSWC; • soliciting input and building support from other organizations such as Division of Water

Quality (DWQ), N.C. Pork Council, N.C. Attorney General’s Office, and environmental groups;

• selecting pilot farms; • designing and implementing EMSs on pilot farms; • providing training; • developing tools; • identifying EMS benefits and challenges; and • sharing information. PARTNERSHIPS The partnerships established in the beginning of this project were an essential component to the project’s success. DPPEA staff had EMS knowledge and experience, while CES and DSWC were knowledgeable about pork production operations and the environmental regulations and requirements affecting this industry. In addition, they knew the farmers and had established relationships as assistance providers. This was especially valuable at the outset of the program, as they were vital in encouraging farms to apply for the program. Farmers trusted their CES agents and were willing to try something new on the basis of their participation in the program. Both agencies assisted with selection of the pilot farms and initial cross training. Each agency brought much needed experience, knowledge, contacts and credibility to the project. Co-coaching CES agents partnered with DPPEA throughout the project as co-coaches for farms. EMS was a new concept to the pork producers participating in the project. Successful development and implementation of an EMS required ongoing training and assistance to the pilot farms. DPPEA had successfully used a “coaching” approach in past projects where one or two staff were assigned to a project participant and worked closely with that participant throughout the project. Relationships developed with project participants (and between coaches) through this approach provides trust, consistency and the high level of assistance needed for complicated and long-term projects.

2

Co-coaching was especially important in the beginning of the project. One of the DPPEA coaches stated that the most beneficial aspect of the partnering approach was the knowledge of the operations and applicable regulations and ability to speak the language of the farmer brought by the CES coaches. DPPEA came into the project with an EMS and system initiatives perspective, whereas the producer was focused on daily tasks. The CES coach had a good understanding of these daily tasks and served as a good link when considering what was doable and when addressing training and other needs. Communication between the DPPEA and CES coaches was important, especially since many of the CES coaches lived in other areas of the state. Some coaches met occasionally prior to a farm visit to discuss questions and issues together. This helped to ensure they both agreed and understood how to best work with and assist the producer. The coaches that communicated frequently with each other had the most success working together and with their producers. While the partnerships were an essential part of the project, the turnover of staff created some problems. A number of coaches from CES retired or took other positions during the project (although some continued to be involved). Both the project coordinator and intern left DPPEA for other jobs in the project’s final year. These departures at a critical time in the project resulted in some instability and loss of expertise. Turnover and budget and staff restrictions (such as job freezes) in both programs presented challenges and affected some pilot farms more than others. Losing coaches for a few of the farms resulted in reduced momentum and interest. One farm had planned to apply for ISO 14001 certification but decided not to pursue certification after its coaches left the project. While other factors may have played a role, this seemed to underscore the importance of coaches in motivating and assisting farms. Coaches Training Several initial training sessions were developed for coaches, taking advantage of the knowledge and experience each partner program brought to the project. Before coaches could begin working with the farms it was essential they had a clear understanding of pork operations and EMS. The project’s first training session was held Aug. 21-22, 2001. CES staff, with assistance from DSWC, conducted a two-day workshop for DPPEA coaches on pork operations and associated environmental issues and regulations. Much of this effort concentrated on waste management from the hog houses and proper lagoon and spray field operation. On Sept. 12, 2001, DPPEA provided a full day of training for CES staff on EMS, including an overview of the standard and its 17 elements. These cross-training efforts prepared coaches to begin meeting and working with the pork producers. See Appendix A for training agendas, information on expectations of coaches, an evaluation form used to get feedback from producers about their coaches, and a letter of support from CES.

3

PILOT FARMS Selection A Swine Advisory Committee (SAC) for this project was formed and met in May 2001. The committee was comprised of representatives from CES, DSWC, DENR Division of Water Quality (DWQ), DPPEA, the N.C. Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, nongovernmental organizations [Save Our State and the Alliance for a Responsible Swine Industry (ARSI)], U.S. EPA, company and contract pork producers, and the N.C. Pork Council. The SAC provided input to developing criteria for a “Request for Grant for Pork Producers” that was used to select pork producers to receive grant funds and participate in the project. An agenda of the meeting is included in Appendix B. Applications to participate in the project were mailed to approximately 2,400 pork-producing facilities. DPPEA staff at various meetings promoted the project with pork producers, through the N.C. Pork Council’s weekly newsletter “Porkline,” and by CES and DSWC staff working with pork producers in the field. Fourteen applications were received covering all aspects of pork production, including finishing, nursery and farrowing, or a combination of these. The application and scoring criteria are included in Appendix B. Information reviewed for each applicant included geographic locations, compliance records, variety of operations and sizes, differences in site locations and environmental conditions, ownership, causes of and solutions to major environmental releases, and other background information. A panel with representation from DPPEA, CES and DSWC reviewed all information and rated the applications using established criteria. Farms that scored highest were selected for participation. Since a number of applicants were very close in the scoring, the panel decided to include nine farms–rather than the originally planned seven–in the project. DPPEA issued a press release announcing selection of the pilot farms (Appendix B). One of the smaller farms withdrew in the first few months due to concerns about the needed time commitment.

The pilot farms selected ranged in size from one to 13 full-time employees and from 720 sows to 36,720 finishers. The farms include nursery, sow farrow to wean operations, sow to finish, and finishers.

The following pork producers participated in the project. Their cooperation, eagerness to improve their operations, and persistence (even when they were unsure of the benefits), were essential to the success of this project.

Pilot Farm / Owner Location Type of Operation Number of Hogs:

Beaver Dam Farm, Sam Hosking

Cumberland County Contract Nursery 5,200 nursery piglets

Cowan Farms, Doug Cowan

Craven County Contract sow farrow to wean 720 sows

4

Craven Farms, Allen McCoy

Jones County Independent sow to finish 3,600 finishers 630 sows

King Farms, Craig & Kathy King

Duplin County Contract Finisher 2,900 finishers

Little Creek Farms, Chuck Stokes

Pitt County Contract Finisher 36,720 finishers

Sarem Farms, Bundy Lane

Gates County Contract sow farrow to wean 4,800 sows

TDM Farm #5, Ted Neidmond

Sampson County Corporate sow farrow to wean 2,500 sows

White Rock Farm, Rodney Purser

Union County Contract sow farrow to wean 2,200 sows

EMS Design and Implementation Once the pilot farms were identified and coaches had received some basic training, DPPEA and CES staff began working one-on-one with the producers. In addition to coaches, staffing for the project included a project coordinator and a graduate student to assist in project implementation and tool development. An initial meeting was held to introduce producers to the EMS concept and give each an opportunity to meet their coaches and begin scheduling visits. Farmers were receptive but guarded to the idea of an EMS. The personal attention each farm received from their coaches was important. There was an initial time period of establishing trust, learning about the farms, and just getting to know each other. Then coaches began to lead the producer step-by-step in designing their EMS. Coaches emphasized the need for each farm to customize and take ownership of their EMS. Design of each farm’s EMS followed the ISO 14001 model, addressing all 17 elements. However, producers were encouraged to create a system that worked best for them and that they would be able to maintain. Only one of the farms expressed interest in ISO 14001 certification (mainly due to cost) but all were looking for something to help them better manage the environmental impacts of their farms. To date, none of the pilot farms has sought certification. Most farms followed a similar format for their manual. Some producers incorporated EMS procedures into their manual, while others kept the procedures separate. For work instructions, a variety of approaches were used. One of the farms developed work instructions that included pictures demonstrating proper farm operations that aided employees in understanding the procedures. Several of the pilot farms had EMS materials translated into Spanish. Six farms had policies translated, four had work instructions translated, and two had objectives and targets translated. Sample manuals, picture work instructions, and Spanish-translated materials are available at http://www.p2pays.org/porktool/. A few examples are included in Appendix C. Assistance was particularly important in the evaluation of aspects and significance. This was an intangible concept to many farmers. They had knowledge about their farm’s most

5

important environmental impact, but were not skilled in using an EMS "analysis" to reach this conclusion. The significance screen was important in that it showed farmers how to use certain criteria to prioritize the many aspects they had identified. It was interesting to note that understanding of the EMS seemed to “click” when producers saw all the impacts ranked. Identifying all the activities, aspects and impacts on their farms was an overwhelming task, but once criteria were established and impacts were ranked, many of the producers began to see value in their EMS. Some concern with EMS design and implementation was the time it took and increased paperwork. Producers feel they must already keep a good deal of paperwork for their permits and land applications programs. Some shied away from written procedures and checklists. The tools that were developed as part of this project should greatly streamline the process involved with design steps, thereby reducing the amount of time it takes. The tools should also make documents easier to produce initially and then update over time. Training Training was provided to pilot participants through on-farm meetings and a few formalized training sessions. At the project kick-off meeting, EMS basics were presented. An EMS was introduced as:

• a systematic way of managing immediate and long-term environmental impacts; • focused on continual improvement; • a tool to improve environmental performance; and • based on a Plan-Do-Check-Act Model.

A brief overview of the basic elements gave producers an idea of the work ahead without being too overwhelming. As producers met their coaches they were assured of continual help and guidance (see Appendix D for agenda). Each on-farm visit presented opportunities to train and provide information to the producers. Coaches helped the producers train the farm employees on their EMS policy statement and objectives and targets. Some coaches also assisted producers with training on EMS procedures and specific work instructions. In March 2003, Suzanne Sessoms of Environmental Management Services conducted EMS Internal Auditor Training for the farmers and coaches. The training covered EMS auditing basics, a virtual audit, an auditor’s toolkit, and EMS documentation. The agenda, toolkit description and training evaluation summary are included in Appendix D. Most farmers involved in the project attended and commented on the usefulness of the training. Slides from the training are available at http://www.p2pays.org/porktool/samples/AuditTrain.pdf. A final workshop was conducted in November 2003 to share the EMS experiences of pilot farms, introduce the EMS tools that had been developed, and provide training on EMS and the tools. The workshop was held in Greenville, N.C., and was open to pork producers throughout the state. More than 60 individuals attended, representing state and federal government, pork producers, trade associations, assistance providers and environmental

6

advocacy groups. Appendix D includes workshop brochure, agenda, evaluation form and summary. Three of the eight pilot participants attended: Kathy King of King Farms, Bundy Lane of Sarem Farms, and Chuck Stokes of Little Creek Hog Farms. Bundy Lane and Chuck Stokes made presentations on their experience in participating in the pilot project. All three producers participated in a panel discussion with Dr. Bob Rubin of N.C. State University and John Burke (with DPPEA) sitting in for Rodney Purser of White Rock Farms. The panel participants answered some prepared questions from the panel facilitator and responded to questions from the audience. This panel discussion was a highlight of the workshop, providing insight and perspective to the other producers on how an EMS can help reduce environmental impacts from farm operations. Other presentations included an overview of EMS, introduction to the online EMS tools, a presentation from DSWC on how some pork producers successfully dealt with the extremely rainy fall of 2003 while maintaining acceptable lagoon levels, and a presentation from a Murphy-Brown LLC representative on benefits of EMS for its company-owned farms. Pilot participants, DPPEA staff and CES agents participated in local, state and national meetings throughout the project, sharing experiences on EMS implementation. A couple of the producers participated in national meetings such as the EMS Practioners workshop sponsored by EPA and an EMS Livestock Partnership conference in Wisconsin. EMS TOOLS A key aspect of the project was the creation of tools not only for use directly by pork producers, but as a resource for regulatory staff and others about EMS and potential benefits. While large producers can provide assistance to company-owned farming operations, a number of independent operations and contract growers do not have this support. DPPEA developed EMS tools from information gathered working with pilot farms. As coaches worked with the producers they developed lists of activities, identified environmental aspects and impacts related to those activities, listed their legal requirements and created numerous checklists, forms, work instructions and operational controls. These documents were reviewed to identify the best examples and a diverse sampling of information. Information was distilled, organized and compiled to create assistance tools that could help other pork producers develop an EMS. EMS Online Guidance These assistance tools are available online and enable any pork producer to see real farm examples while creating their own customized EMS manual. The online EMS for Pork Producers is located at http://www.p2pays.org/porktool/. Guidance is provided using an element-by element, step-by-step approach to walk the producer through the process and includes concise explanations, samples from pilot farms including work instructions, EMS procedures, checklists and other tools. An interactive program allows producers to identify activities, the environmental impacts of these activities, and prioritize the significance of each impact. The online tool is organized by the following headings:

7

• Pork EMS Tools - Home - Overview of Web site and EMS benefits. • What is an EMS? - Explanation of an EMS and Plan-Do-Check-Act model. • Getting Started - Considerations before starting an EMS, including management

commitment, determining scope and using what they already have in place (record-keeping, training, etc.).

• Using this Tool - Instructions on how to best use the tools. • Build The EMS - Provides a table (see below) with links to each element,

procedure and sample tools. Links to the procedures and tools can also be accessed from the element-by-element guidance.

ISO 14001 Standard Element – Guidance

Procedure Sample Tools

4.2 Environmental Policy Policy Procedure Policy Examples 4.3.1 Environmental Aspects

Aspect and Impacts Procedure

Interactive Aspect/Impact Tool Aspect Identification Impacts Definitions. Impacts Worksheet Significant Ranking Criteria Farrow to Wean Aspect & Impacts Nursery Aspect & Impacts Finisher Aspect & Impact

4.3.2 Legal and Other Requirements

Legal & Other Requirements Procedure

4.3.3 Objectives and Targets

and 4.3.4 Environmental

Management Program

Objectives and Targets and Environmental Management Programs Procedure

Objectives & Targets Examples Objectives and Targets and Environmental Management Programs Form

4.4.1 Structure and Responsibility

Roles and Responsibilities Procedure

4.4.2 Training, Awareness and Competence

4.4.3 Communication

Communications Procedure

external communications form

4.4.4 EMS Documentation

EMS Manual

4.4.5 Document Control

Document Procedure

EMS Document Template Document Control Matrix Training and Document Control Matrix Form

4.4.6 Operational Controls:

Operational Procedure

Standard Operating Procedures/Work Instructions

8

4.4.7 Emergency preparedness and response

Emergency Procedure

Emergency Action Plan

4.5.1 Monitoring and measurement

Monitoring and Measuring Procedure

4.5.2 Nonconformance and Corrective & Preventive Actions

Corrective and Preventive Action Procedure

Corrective and Preventative Action Log

4.5.3 Records

Records Procedure

4.5.4 EMS Auditing

Auditing Procedure

EMS Audit Report Form Auditor Training Audit Document Review Audit Questions & Worksheets

4.6 Management Review

Management Review Procedure

This guidance includes an EMS manual template (http://www.p2pays.org/porktool/procedures/manual.doc) and sample manual (http://www.p2pays.org/porktool/samples/samplemanual.pdf). The manual template, procedures and many of the worksheets, checklists and other tools can be downloaded and used to create a customized EMS by replacing the red highlighted areas with user-specific information. The examples can be printed and downloaded, but cannot be changed. Aspects Impacts Manager (AIM) Located at http://xapps.enr.state.nc.us/survey/index.jsp is the AIM tool. The development of this tool required extensive planning and computer programming but resulted in a tool that can greatly simplify one of the most confusing and difficult parts of EMS development. AIM is an interactive program where the user identifies from pull-down menus individualized farm activities, the associated environmental aspects and impacts, and then ranks those to determine which are most significant. The menus of activities, aspects, impacts and ranking criteria were generated from the pilot farms’ individual EMSs. The user can either select from the pull-down menu or add their own activities to make a customized profile. Completing this program will lead the producer to create a table ranking significant impacts from highest to lowest specific to his farm. This information helps the producer prioritize the environmental impacts most important for his farm and where to focus improvement goals. The AIM tool was programmed so that activities, aspects and impacts from other sectors could be entered into the fields for the pull-down menus. This will allow the AIM tool to be expanded and used for other sectors. See Appendix E for sample screens from the AIM tool and the Pork Producers tool press release.

9

EMS BENEFITS Producers and coaches associated with this project agreed that the EMS implementation had a beneficial impact on farm operations and presented numerous advantages. • Overall farm operation. A producer said that through the EMS implementation he

learned a lot about the overall operation of his farm. “It enables you to take a long and hard look at your overall operation while at the same time examining the effectiveness of specific components that allow your farm to function daily,” he said.

The EMS has changed several aspects of these facilities, such as creating emergency response procedures, training procedures, as well as procedures for monitoring and measuring the effectiveness.

• Improved documentation, which leads to increased accountability and responsibility,

as well as better communication between employees and neighbors. A producer commented that with the help of the communications requirement of the EMS, he has found several ways to help keep good relations with his neighbors, such as sending out a newsletter about the operation and encouraging them to let him know when they are planning outdoor activities.

• Improved emergency preparation. One producer stated that the effectiveness of his

EMS was apparent during Hurricane Isabel in 2003. The farm’s hurricane preparation time was cut from four days to two days because each employee knew their individual duties and were able to quickly perform them, saving the farm both time and money. He also credits the EMS with preventing temporary “patches” to problems on the farm, helping to provide a more permanent basis for repairs.

• Neighbors are not calling DENR to complain; instead, due to the community

communication started under the EMS, the community is aware of what is going on, is more understanding of the process, and comes directly to the business owner.

• Inspection visits are faster with an EMS in place. • Improved lagoon sludge management. The EMS led several producers to evaluate

and act on sludge accumulation in their lagoons, ahead of regulatory requirements. • Having written work instructions improves training and accountability. • Training helped to connect the work practices employees were asked to do each day

with regulatory requirements or other measures to protect the environment. Participants believed the employees appreciated the training they received. The training emphasized not only how to do their tasks, but also why the task was important and how it might prevent impacts to the environment. For instance, fan motors are dusted weekly. While this was a long-standing practice, the link was made that this helps prevent fires, thereby preventing harm to both the animals and the environment. In another example,

10

a farm had set as an objective and target to install travel guide markers for its field spray operation. While employees assisted with this task, they did not know why this was important until it was explained in the training class that this helped ensure proper application of waste material in accordance with the farm’s land application program.

• Public opinion was of great importance to the farmers and they saw the EMS as a way

to improve that area of management. • Translation of farm policies, work instructions, etc. was valuable for farms with non-

English speaking employees. Having the information in Spanish seemed helpful, as did having digital photos included in training sessions to show examples of working or broken equipment (such as a leaking nipple waterer).

• In working with the farm managers, talking to them about various potential emergency

scenarios was a good process. For example, in thinking about a gas delivery truck and how the driver accessed the tank, it led one farmer to place a post in front of the tank painted bright orange to prevent the driver from backing up too close and possibly hitting or damaging the tank. This was a simple and relatively inexpensive thing to do and lowered the risk of an accident with potential environmental impacts.

EMS CHALLENGES • Several of the producers agreed that the greatest difficulty associated with the EMS was

the amount of time that it took to design and implement it. The mini-grants provided through this project did not cover the time spent; however, one of the producers expressed hope the tools developed will cut down on the amount of time for future EMS implementers. While devoting time to the project was difficult, some participants stated they now realize an EMS can allow another person to step in and run the business.

• Understanding the need and becoming motivated to develop the EMS was a challenge,

but participants believed the benefits far outweighed the drawbacks associated with an EMS.

• Difficult to see the value in an EMS at first, but once have gone through the process can

see the elements that are beneficial. • Making yourself believe in the EMS, not just doing it to “look good.” • It was easy to get off track with the demands of day-to-day farm management if

sufficient time was not devoted to the EMS. • Excessive rain during the project prevented spraying which, in turn, affected EMS goals

so that not all parts of the EMS were implemented on schedule. • Excessive employee turnover on farms created problems with implementing and

sustaining the EMS.

11

• One of the producers noted appreciation for EPA’s interest in helping develop EMSs for

agriculture and stated now farms have proof of what is going on instead of just their word.

PARTICIPANT TESTIMONIALS The following are quotes from the participants on their thoughts and opinions of implementing an EMS into their farm activities. All of the pilot farms saw value in the process and seemed positive about an EMS helping to improve environmental performance and increase efficiency of farm operations.

Mark Jackson, Environmental Manager, Hog Slat Inc. Those of us who have worked in the safety profession for any length of time are familiar with the techniques of evaluating risk through the probability of occurrence, frequency/length of exposure and likely injury/adverse effect. These same techniques are used in setting up and implementing an EMS program, however, we find that there is a significant difference in terminology. Aspects and impacts are terms that make perfect sense when applied to EMS programs but there is a learning curve associated with their use. For this reason, we have found the assistance of outside facilitators/coaches invaluable. The Cooperative Extension Service and Division of Pollution Prevention and Environmental Assistance of North Carolina are natural sources for this assistance, since both are actively involved with community outreach. We highly recommend this approach to other states and/or industries."

King Farms "We tried to identify things that would make us more efficient as well as make us more environmentally friendly. This is a long process. Each individual (farm will have) their own aspects and impacts that are important to them."

Sam Hosking, Beaver Dam Farms "My coaches walked me through the process. I didn't understand the exact desired result- I didn't get the idea of the end product in the beginning... I didn't need to walk through the (hog) houses (to identify aspects and impacts), I knew from my daily experience the info. I needed- but I didn't think it would hurt to walk through as a self check."

Roddy Purser, White Rock Farms "We identified our aspects and impacts by discussing the systems of each of the hog houses and the other related systems such as the lagoon, irrigation, generator etc. and looked at what kind of impact each could have to people, animals or the environment. The most confusing part of the aspects and impacts was deciding on which were significant. There was nothing really all that hard about it. This process was all new to me, but step-by-step it wasn't so overwhelming."

Allen McCoy, Craven Farms "I looked at all activities and listed everything. This was a good way to do it. I didn't understand the process at first, assistance was needed."

Chuck Stokes, Little Creek Farms "EMS for me is the coat of wax on a nice car. In my operation I had done all that was possible to identify environmental issues. However, with

12

an operation my size this was not enough. Invariably I found myself behind the problem rather than in front of it. Although EMS has not instantaneously corrected all of my problems it has given me the vision needed to address environmental impacts related to my farm. Within the year I feel confident that my overall operation will be dramatically enhanced by the implementation of EMS. Some say that we in the industry are just trying to use EMS to justify an unjustifiable way of farming. This is incorrect. Each EMS is different in design and nature because each application is different. One size will never fit all where EMS is concerned. Simply put, what is an issue to me as a hog farmer in North Carolina may not be as big an issue to a hog farmer in Iowa or a dairy farmer in Wisconsin or even another hog farmer in North Carolina. EMS enables you to take a long and hard look at your overall operation while at the same time examining the effectiveness of specific components that allow your farm to function daily. Within the framework of EMS you are able to set long-term goals while simultaneously and systematically accomplishing short-term objectives. In a nutshell, EMS is a living breathing animal that flourishes if used, but dies on the vine if not fed by the injection of variables, both long and short term. Today it is simply not adequate to identify a set of problems, goals or strengths. As farmers we must go after improvements, mark them off as completed, and move on to the next challenge. EMS is the vehicle to accomplish this. EMS allows us to incorporate a system of checks and balances that eventually will hold us accountable to ourselves and others that in the end will result in a more environmentally efficient farm."

LESSONS LEARNED A complete EMS that would pass certification may be too much for a small farm to incorporate and keep up-to-date. The full EMS for a larger business that manages many farms is beneficial and would probably be worthwhile for the organization to keep updated. The problem comes in deciding how much of the standard to leave out when assisting a small farm so that it is something they can get their hands around and keep up-to-date. A few things that farms found most beneficial include identifying and ranking aspects and impacts, developing objectives and targets and an action plan, listing of all regulations applicable to the farm and report dates/contacts, documented work instructions, and employee training. Assistance, encouragement and continual support of coaches were essential elements of successful development and implementation. Many of the coaches found that farms lost interest and “put things off” if the coaches did not stay actively involved. Contract and independent farms that do not have easy access to assistance need some face-to-face help to design and implement an EMS. As stated earlier, partnering with CES and DSWC was vital to this project. It is important to get agencies working together that can bring knowledge and experience to a project. Without the CES agents to help establish trust with the producers early in the project it is doubtful the project would have gotten off the ground. Mini-grants were offered to the farms as an incentive to encourage participation. A couple of the producers stated the cash incentive was the reason they applied to be part of the

13

project. There were concerns that while grants might be an incentive and would attract more applicants, the applicants would be less committed, applying for the wrong reasons. For one of the coaches this did seem to be an issue with their farm. On the other hand, one of the producers who said he joined the project to get the money became one of the most committed proponents of the EMS. In addition to being an incentive, the grant funds were used for a variety of useful EMS projects from purchasing computers for improved record-keeping, to purchasing and installing lugustrums for improved odor control. Sharing of work instructions, checklists and other tools developed throughout the project was helpful to the producers. The tools that were developed and are now available online should be very helpful to other producers interested in developing an EMS. FUTURE OUTREACH EFFORTS DPPEA plans an active program to market and continually update the tools developed in this project. Plans include marketing the tools in North Carolina as well as nationally. The N.C. Pork Council, regulatory and non-regulatory state and local staff, and CES agents are all networks that can promote and encourage EMS activity and promote the tools. In March, DPPEA staff will be providing training to DENR Division of Water Quality and DSWC staff at their quarterly meeting. This meeting provides an opportunity to meet with inspectors who work with pork producers on a daily basis. Knowledge of EMS and the tools available will equip inspectors to identify and recommend EMSs to producers who might most benefit from this management system. DPPEA will begin training some of the local level assistance providers such as CES agents and Soil and Water Conservation District office staff so that they can help farmers use these tools. These agencies regularly host meetings on various topics and typically have a good working relationship with local farmers. They have indicated they are receptive to including information on the tools as part of a training session.

Workshops that can offer CEU credits are popular with farmers. Many attend their county's livestock association meeting on a regular basis, so this would be a good communication forum. These meetings are held in the evenings when daily farm work is complete, are held locally, and have food and fellowship leading to a positive atmosphere. These meetings can be useful opportunities to introduce and provide training on using the EMS tools.

National efforts to promote these tools include presenting at the National Forum on Agricultural EMS in Arlington, Va., and other national meetings as opportunities arise. EPA's National Agriculture Compliance Assistance Center has agreed to link EMS tools and DPPEA will be researching and contacting other Web sites, such as EPA’s Compliance Assistance Clearinghouse to also link to the EMS tools site. DPPEA will be developing an EMS for Pork Producers topic hub for the Pollution Prevention Resource Exchange that will incorporate these tools. DPPEA received a grant last year from EPA to develop and field test output and outcome measures to determine the effectiveness of EMS as a compliance assistance tool for swine

14

operations. New pilot farms will be selected to design and implement an EMS, giving staff an opportunity to field test the tools developed in this project. As staff and farmers use these tools they will be updated, revised and new examples will be added. Continued maintenance, marketing and training on the tools will be necessary to keep them current and useful. During this project DPPEA also worked with Murphy-Brown LLC to develop guidance and a template to assist its contract farms in developing EMSs. This tool incorporates many of the resources developed in this project. The Murphy-Brown tool will be available electronically (http://www.p2pays.org/iso/agriculture/pork/smithfield.asp) but is intended to be a hardcopy tool where producers can “fill-in-the-blanks” to develop their EMS. This tool will be especially useful for producers not comfortable with computers and expands the usefulness of the information developed in this project. Activities, aspects and impacts collected in working with other manufacturing, government and agribusiness sectors will be entered into the AIM tool program to provide an interactive tool for other sectors. These efforts increase the transferability of tools developed through this project. It is anticipated that the benefits identified by the producers who participated in this project, and the availability of these EMS tools and examples, will encourage and equip other pork producers to develop an EMS to better manage and reduce environmental impacts from farm operations.

15

APPENDIX A

Expectations of Pork Producers EMS Coaches

Swine Production 101 Agenda EMS Coaches Training Agenda

Pork Producer Coaches Evaluation CES Letter of Support

16

Expectations of Pork Producers EMS Coaches

1. Attend Training a. You will be expected to attend identified training related to pork

production/ pork issues throughout the life of the project. Let project coordinator know if you need additional EMS training.

2. Attend “1st Contact” meeting at which all coaches and pilots will get

together to review the project/ and farmers will learn more about EMS.

3. Attend EMS Coaches meetings – bring phone log, questions, problems, and successes to discuss and share.

4. Assist your organization as requested.

a. Visit facility site (on a regular basis determined by you and the pilot farm. Do not ask or expect farmers to come to Raleigh).

b. You will be expected to facilitate meetings and guide EMS design and implementation. Provide information as needed.

c. Train the EMS Team. d. Train other employees. e. Assist in the writing of the EMS Manual, SOP’s, etc. if needed

5. Keep a detailed notebook on the project and provide project

coordinator with a copy of agenda(s) and minutes.

6. Assist in writing the case study for your facility at the completion of this phase of the project.

7. Share information and tools with other pork producers and coaches.

8. Keep yourself up-to-date by reading materials posted on our web site

related to this project and other pork producing issues.

17

Swine Production 101 - Crash Course for EMS Swine Coaches August 21 and 22, 9:00 - 4:00 Land Application Training and Demonstration Center Lake Wheeler Road Field Laboratory Tuesday, August 21 9:00 - 9:15 Welcome, introductions and overview - Ron Sheffield, Bio & Ag Engineering, NCSU 9:15 - 10:30 NC Swine Production Systems - Dr Todd See, Animal Science, NCSU 10:30 - 12:00 Tour of NCSU Swine Educational Unit - Farrow to Finish facilities 12:00 - 1:15 Lunch - on your own 1:15 - 4:00 Swine Waste Management

Environmental Management and Swine Rule - Karl Shaffer, Soil Science, NCSU Manure Management Systems - Ron Sheffield Waste Utilization Planning - Karl Shaffer

Wednesday, August 22 9:00 - 10:00 Swine Farm Records - Karl Shaffer and Ron Sheffield 10:00 - 12:00 Swine Waste Management Plans: What are they? - Pat Hooper, DENR-DS&WC, Washington R.O. 12:00 - 1:15 Lunch - on your own 1:15 - 2:30 Swine Waste Management Plans (continued) 2:30 - 3:15 Violations and Deficiencies on NC Swine Farms - Ron Sheffield and Pat Hooper 3:15 - 4:00 Whole Farm Nutrient Planning - Karl Shaffer and/or Ron Sheffield

18

EMS Coaches Training Agenda

Parker-Lincoln Front Training Room September 12, 2001 9:30 – 3:00 Intro. Exercise 9:30 – 9:40 First Steps (assignments, contract process, work plan, roles and responsibilities, policy statement) 9:40 – 10:00 Implementation (review document) 10:00 – 10:30 Documentation Strategies, Suzanne Sessoms 10:30 – 11:30 Lunch 11:30 – 12:30 Aspect/Impact review 12:30 – 1:15 Presentations/Trainings/Resource Review 1:15 – 1:30

Break 1:30 – 1:45 Details from Ron Sheffield details about GPS Mapping, WFNM, Revisiting EAP, Eng. Design review, water utilization review, improving self-inspection 1:45 – 2:00 Kick-Off meeting review 2:00 – 2:10 Questions/Concerns/Discussion 2:10

19

DPPEA EMS Pork Producers Coach Evaluation

Evaluation for Coach # ______________(from the cover page) From _______________(Your number from the cover page) Please answer the following items concerning the performance of the coach. (If you have more than one DPPEA coach use a separate sheet per each coach.) 1. Knowledge of ISO 14001/EMS: A. High B. Medium C. Low D. Other (explain)_____________________________ 2. Ability to convey information/explain ISO/EMS concepts: A. Excellent B. Very Good C. Good D. Satisfactory E. Poor 3. The coach is organized: A. Always B. Sometimes C. Rarely D. Never E.Other (explain)_____________________ 4. Meetings are productive: A. Always B. Sometimes C. Rarely D. Never E.Other (explain)_____________________ 5. Fill in the blank. I __________________ the elements that we have completed and how they fit into my EMS. A. fully understand B. mostly understand C. partially understand D. don’t understand 6. Please describe how EMS decisions are made: a. The coach provides me with guidance and information and I (or the internal EMS team) make decisions b. The coach provides guidance and information and he/she makes all decisions c. The coach provides me with guidance and information and we make decisions together d. Other. (explain)________________________________________________________________________ 7. The coach uses our time together wisely: A. Always B. Sometimes C. Rarely D. Never E. Other (explain)___________________________________________________________________________ 8. I would describe the pace of my EMS planning and implementation as: A. Too fast B. Just right C. Too slow 9. My level of satisfaction with performance of this coach is: A. Performance is beyond expectations- I’m delighted B. I’m very satisfied with their performance C. Their performance meets minimum levels of satisfaction D. Their performance is not satisfactory 10. Coaches strengths ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 11. Areas for improvement ____________________________________________________________________________________

20

FEU-06-2004 FRI 12:31 PM I . , . *

Sharon Johnson

FAX NO,

Norlli Carolina State University is a land- grant university and a constituent institution of The University of North Carolina

P,

Department of Biolagical Agricultural Engineering

Box 7625 Raleigh, NC 27695-7625

91 9.515.2675 919.515.6772 (fax)

Industrial Assistance Section NCIIPPEA 1639 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC, 27699-2639

Dear Ms. Johnson;

Subject: EMS Project

Thank you for the opportunity to work cooperatively with you and the professional staff in the North Carolina Department of Pollution Prevention and Environmental Assistance (NCDPPEA) on the development of the Environmental Management System (EMS) for pork producers. The EMS process is an international standard utilized to assess conformance with locally derived management programs. The pork industry is important in North Carolina and responsible producers are examining the EMS process as a facility managcinent tool.

Represcntatives from the Cooperative Extension Service who participated in the process valued the opportunity to assist in this process. Each of the Extension personnel reported that participation as a participantlcoach in the EMS process improved their understanding of future directions in environmental management.

Extension involvement with the EMS project consisted of

1. Parlicipation in monthly meetings with ownedoperators of pilot farms and frequent telephone contacts with farmers during initial phases of EMS process.

2. Participation in extension sponsored seminars to discuss EMS activities and operations with peers

3. Presentations at regional or district extension meetings concerning EMS activities 4. Presentations at local grower meetings describing the EMS process and associated

acii vities, benefits of process, and opportunities for future development of EMS projects

S. Assistance to local growers in dcvelopment and review of EMS plans

Extension personnel werc involved during the early phases of the process, but attrition rcsultcd i n some personnel loss and lhis did adversely impact mtension involvemcnt. Sevcl-al or thc participants rcnlaincd committed to the process following departure from Extcnsion, but in gcneral, as personnel left Extension, participation ceased.

I do hope that this i s of value to your final report. There were benefits to those cxtcnsion personnel who participated. As a resulk of this effort, several of our younger extension

FEB-06-2004 FRI 12:31 PM FAX NO,

peIsonncl sec tremendous benefit to this process and they have expressed i ntereest in participating in future EMS activities. Scveral have indicated interest in developing EMS uctivitics in areas oulside the traditional agricultural arena and bclievc that this process is important as a management tool.

Sinccrel y;

A. K. Rubin, Professor and Extension Specialist Siotogical and Agricultural Engineering

APPENDIX B

Swine Advisory Committee Meeting Agenda Pork Producers Grant Application

Score Sheets/Criteria EMS Grant Award Press Release

23

Swine Advisory Committee Meeting Agenda

May 17, 2001 10:30 a.m. Raleigh, NC Parker Lincoln Building Air Quality Training Room

Welcome Gary Hunt 10:30 – 10:40

DPPEA role in project Bob Rubin 10:40-10:45 Cooperative Extensions role in project

Barb Satler 10:45 – 11:05 DPPEA EMS background

Introductions, Housekeeping Project Description Jim Horne 11:05 – 11:15

Grant overview, EPA’s historical involvement with EMS, livestock interest Beth Graves 11:15 – 11:25

DPPEA project overview

Pilot Criteria Discussion Barb Satler, 11:25 – 11:55 Review RFP- criteria Beth Graves 11:55 – 12:00 Marketing project

Barb Satler 12:00 – 12:15

Questions, Communications via email Lunch at Don Murray’s. (Dutch)

24

DiviDep The and ifeasiand d ThisrevieBarb6506http:by J WhaAppl WhoIndeon crand inclucontrone pTo b• • • All fagree HowDistrimplto issalongof th WhaEachNatu

2001 Pork Producer Environmental Management System

Request For Grant

sion of Pollution Prevention & Environmental Assistance, artment of Environment, and Natural Resources

purpose of this Request for Grant is to select up to seven pork producers who will serve as pilot projects to develop mplement an environmental management system (EMS) following the ISO 14001 model. The pilots will test the bility of an EMS at pork producing facilities, participate in public policy discussions, encourage pollution prevention, evelop partnerships.

document is a Request for Grant (RFG) for Pork Producers to become EMS pilot facilities. Applicants should w this RFP in its entirety prior to completing an application. Questions about this RFG should be addressed to ara Satler, (800) 763-0136 or (919) 715-6519 or via e-mail barbara.satler@ncmail.net, or Beth Graves at (919) 715- or by e-mail to beth.graves@ncmail.net. Additional Application Forms may be printed from //www.p2pays.org/iso/sector/pork.htm. Please note that the Application Form must be signed, mailed and postmarked uly 31, 2001.

t is the size of grant awards? icants may request any amount of funding up to a maximum of $3,000. Up to seven pilot projects will be funded.

is eligible? pendent, contract and company pork producers are eligible for funding under this request. Acceptance will be based iteria described below. Multi-party grant requests may be submitted. (Example: Company A contracts farrowing

nursery from Farm A, and growing from Farm B. Company A may submit a request that Farm A and B are both ded in Company A’s EMS, as long as Farm A and B are aware and committed. Another example: John Jones is a actor and owns and manages pork farms at three different locations, each with its own name. Mr. Jones may submit roposal that includes all three facilities.)

e eligible, the pork farm must: be located in North Carolina demonstrate management support and commitment to completing the project; and provide dedicated time as necessary to complete the project

arms covered by the agreement between the Attorney General of North Carolina and Smithfield Foods Inc., and the ment between the Attorney General and Premium Standard Inc., are not eligible.

will grant funds be disbursed to award recipients? ibution of grant funds is on a reimbursement basis. A match is not required. Monies are to be used for EMS design, ementation and related activities. Expenses must be preapproved by the project coordinator. Work completed prior uance of the contract cannot be funded. To receive payments, grant recipients must submit an invoice to DPPEA with documentation of incurred costs. Payments will be available only after receipts are submitted, and 10 percent

e total grant monies will be withheld until the final project summary is submitted.

t other kinds of obligations do grant recipients have? grant recipient will conduct its project under a contract with the North Carolina Department of Environment and ral Resources (DENR) and must meet all contract requirements, including completion of all steps in a scope of work

25

attached as part of the contract. Projects must be completed within 14 months of the beginning date of the contract. At the end of the project, award recipients will be required to submit a copy of their EMS manual and provide information for DPPEA staff to write a case study. How will funding decisions be made? DPPEA will convene an assessment committee to review each application. DPPEA will strive to select diverse farms with criteria that may include: location, type of operation (farrow, nursery, grow, etc.), compliance history, need and degree of commitment. When is the grant application due? Applications must be postmarked no later than July 31, 2001. NO FAXES WILL BE ACCEPTED. Any application postmarked after the deadline will be recycled. Receipt of all proposals will be acknowledged. Recipients will be notified in August. How do you submit a grant application? • Please mail one signed copy of the application form postmarked no later than July 31, 2001 to: Mailing address: DPPEA EMS Pork Producers Project

Attn: Barbara Satler NC Division of Pollution Prevention & Environmental Assistance 1639 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1639

2001 Pork Producer Environmental Management System Grant Application Check List

Before submitting your grant proposal, use this check-off list to make sure you have included all the necessary documents. Incomplete proposals will be excluded from consideration. ____ A completed, signed, Pork Producers EMS Application Form. _____ Tax identification or social security number on Application Form. _____ Supporting documents (optional) - e.g. letters of endorsement, copies of resolutions or policies, supporting documentation. printed on recycled paper 2,500 copies of this public document were printed at a cost of $137.00, or $.18 per copy Application Form for Pork Producers

26

North Carolina Division of Pollution Prevention and Environmental Assistance 2001 Pork Producer Environmental Management System

Request for Grant

Contact Person Phone # ( ) Fax # ( ) Mailing address E-mail address Tax ID or Social Security #

Check one:

Independent Contract Grower

Company

Amount Requested: $__________________ Please answer the questions below and on the back page. You may use additional paper if necessary. 1. Brief description of the pork producing facility/facilities. (Include location(s), type of operation(s), type of animal waste management, number of wettable acres, other animals on the farm, type of receiving crop.) 2. Brief description of organizational structure of the farm. (Example, I, John Farmer, am the owner and manager of all three locations mentioned above. I have two full-time workers, who are responsible for (duties) at all of the facilities, etc. OR This facility is owned by Fox Farms Inc. located in X. The owner of the facility is Mr(s) X. The facility manager is X. There are X number of workers (titles) who all report directly to the facility manager. They are responsible for…)

27

3. Reasons why the facility wishes to participate, and benefits it hopes to achieve through adopting an EMS. (What would make this project a success for you, the pork producer.) 4. Statement of need: 5. Additional information you wish to include. Please attach any supporting documents. Certification: I hereby certify that the information provided within this grant application is true and accurate to my knowledge and by signing I demonstrate my commitment and support of this project. _________________________________________ _______________________ ______________________ ______ ______ _Name of Authorized Person Title Signature Date The following information will be completed by DPPEA staff: Date application received _________ Date of Acknowledgment to Applicant _________ Proposal Number _______

28

EMS for Pork Producers Score Sheet

Application number# __________ Applicant contact name:____________________________ Initial Score (This section is completed by the project coordinator, prior to review, after all applications are received) Type of facility (sow/farrow, nursery, grow, finish) How many total applicants of this type were received? ______________ If < 2 score 10 points If 3 – 4 score 8 points If 4 – 5 score 6 points If 5- 6 score 4 points If 6 – more score 1 point points_______ What county is the facility located in? _______________ How many total applicants are located in this county? If < 2 score 5 points If 3-6 score 3 points If 6 or more score 0 points_______

Size determination Small < 2500 or one to three person Medium 2,500 – 10,000 or two to 6 person Large + 10,000 or more than 6 person

How many total applicants of this type are located in this county? ____________ If < 2 score 10 points If 3 – 4 score 8 points If 4 – 5 score 6 points If 5- 6 score 4 points If 6 – more score 1 point points_______ How many total applicants of this size were submitted? ____________ If < 2 score 10 points If 3 – 4 score 8 points If 4 – 5 score 6 points If 5- 6 score 4 points If 6 – more score 1 point Is the application signed? Yes = 5 points, no = 0 points points_______ Total initial score _________ Review Score:

29

Applicant answered question #1 fully and understandably? 0 ------------------------------------------------------ 10 no exceeded expectations points_______ Demonstrates understanding of EMS through benefits it hopes to achieve 0 ------------------------------------------------------ 10 no exceeded expectations points_______ Needs are valid pertaining to the EMS: yes = 5 points, no = 0 points_______ Extra points (up to 5can be given) based on written justification below. Extra points ______ Review total score_______ Total points ( review plus initial scores) __________________ Reviewer sign/date___________________________________________________________________________

30

Michael F. Easley, Governor William G. Ross Jr., Secretary

N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources

Release: Immediate Contact: Diana Kees, (919) 715-6515 D ate: Sept. 10, 2001 Distribution: Statewide

POLLUTION PREVENTION AGENCY AWARDS GRANTS TO ASSIST

STATE PORK PRODUCERS IN MANAGING ENVIRONMENTAL ACTIVITIES RALEIGH – Nine North Carolina pork producers will begin developing environmental management systems (EMSs) under grants awarded by the N.C. Division of Pollution Prevention and Environmental Assistance (DPPEA) to assist pork producers in the systematic management of their environmental activities. Each of the nine farms will receive up to $3,000 to assist in the development of an individualized EMS, a tool that provides organizations with a method to systematically manage their environmental activities, provides structure, and helps them to achieve environmental obligations and performance goals. An EMS follows a Plan-Do-Check-Act cycle or PDCA and can be used by a wide range of organizations – from manufacturing facilities to service industries to agricultural operations to government agencies.

The Environmental Protection Agency provided funding for the grants through a Water Quality Cooperative Agreement to develop tools and test outreach techniques for the state’s pork producers to implement an EMS. DPPEA will work on the project in cooperation with the N.C. Cooperative Extension Service and the N.C. State University Department of Biological and Agricultural Engineering. Both agencies will provide EMS “coaches” to assist the farms in developing site-specific EMSs.

Interest in an EMS model for pork producers has increased since the separate agreements signed last year between the North Carolina attorney general’s office and Smithfield Foods and Premium Standard – which, among other things, require both companies to implement an ISO 14001-based EMS on all company-owned farms. ISO 14001 is an international standard adopted in 1996 that many organizations use as their model for an EMS.

Farms/farmers awarded grants include: • TDM Farms of Newton Grove • White Rock Farms LLC of Marshville • Jo Ann Stroud of Kenansville • King Farms of Teachey • Cowan Farms of Ernul • Craven Farms Inc. of Trenton • Sarem Farms Inc. of Gates • Little Creek Hog Farms of Ayden; and • Lee A. Hosking of Roseboro.

For more information about this project, please contact Barbara Satler, DPPEA environmental specialist, at (919) 715-6519 or barbara.satler@ncmail.net. For more information about EMS, please visit http://www.p2pays.org/iso/.

31

APPENDIX C

EMS Policy Samples – English and Spanish Sample Procedure – Nursery Pit Drain and Recharge - English and Spanish

32

ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY SAMPLES Farm A Farm A is committed to meeting or exceeding relevant environmental regulations and other environmental related requirements through the continual improvement of its environmental management system and the prevention of pollution. Farm A will develop and monitor annual environmental objectives and targets to assist in meeting this commitment. POLÍTICA AMBIENTAL Farm A se compromete a satisfacer o exceder los reglamentos ambientales pertinentes, así como otros requisitos ambientales pertinentes mediante el continuo mejoramiento de su sistema de manejo ambiental y en impedir la contaminación. Farm A desarrollará y controlará objetivos y metas anuales sobre el ambiente para ayudar con este compromiso. Farm B Farm B will identify, in environmental terms, both the strong and weak points of its entire operation. The company will attempt to reduce substantially any potential impact on air quality, surface and ground waters, public health, the community and its quality of life, employee health, animal welfare, and land value, while continuing to produce high quality pork meat for human consumption. It will focus on improving communication with its neighbors and improved accuracy in identifying nutrients applied to and depleted from the soil within the limits of CAWMP. Farm B will diligently attempt to keep in place a plan for continued improvement that will impede pollution and will meet or exceed current requirements. Farm B, identificará, en términos ambientales, sus puntos fuertes y sus puntos débiles en toda su operación e intentará reducir de modo sustancial, los impactos potenciales sobre el aire, las aguas superficiales y las subterráneas, la salud pública, la comunidad, la calidad de vida, la salud de sus empleados, el bienestar de los animales y la degradación de los suelos, mientras que continúa produciendo carne de cerdo de alta calidad para el consumo humano, y se enfoca en mejores comunicaciones con sus vecinos y la mejor identificación de los nutrientes que se aplican y sacan de la tierra, dentro de CAWMP. Farm B, se esforzará para lograr el continuo mejoramiento que impedirá la contaminación y satisfará o excederá los reglamentos actuales.

33

Nursery Pit Drain and Recharge Significant Aspects: Potential Environmental Impacts: Animal Waste Land, surface water, ground water, air quality Excess Sludge Accumulation Work activities seek to protect against animal stress or loss, reduce lagoon loading, improve indoor air quality, and reduce fly population. Report anything unusual to farm manager. Examples include liquid in lift station indicating pump not operational, failure of pit recharge pump. LIFT STATION Two times per week, open circulating valve into lift station. Recycle water automatically comes in and stirs sediment. Lift float on pump so it will pump lift station dry. Drop float back in place. This reduces odor from accumulated solids. Photo shows line lifting float.

NURSERY ROOM PIT Open pull plug on Monday and Tuesday – 3 each day (6 rooms total, one in each room). Wait until pit visually drained and no water going out pit drain. Replace plug. Turn on pit recharge valves (two per room). When recycle water begins to flow over top of pipe in building drain line or after approximately one hour, turn off valves.

34

Desagüe y recarga del pozo en el edificio de lactancia Aspectos significativos: Posibles impactos ambientales: Estiércol de animales Calidad de suelos, aguas superficiales, aguas Acumulación excesiva de subterráneas y aire sedimentos residuales Las actividades de trabajo tienen como meta evitar las pérdidas o el estrés de los animales, reducir la carga de la laguna de estiércol, mejorar la calidad del aire dentro del edificio y reducir la población de moscas. Notifíquele al gerente de la granja de cualquier cosa fuera de lo normal. Ejemplos pueden incluir líquido en el lugar de alzado del flotador indicando que una bomba no está funcionando, o que ha fallado la bomba de recarga del pozo. LUGAR DE ALZADO DEL FLOTADOR Abra las válvulas de recarga (dos por

sala) Dos veces por semana, abra la válvula de circulación al lugar de alzado del flotador. El agua no tratada automáticamente entra y menea o revuelve el sedimento. Levante el flotador de la bomba para que el lugar de alzado quede seco. Vuelva a bajar el flotador en su lugar. Esto reduce el olor de los sólidos acumulados. La foto muestra la línea que levanta el flotador.

Después de más o menos una hora, o cuando el agua no tratada comienza a correr por encima de la tubería en la línea de desagüe del edificio, cierre las álvulas. .

POZO DEL EDIFICIO DE LACTANCIA Abra el tapón los lunes y martes – 3 pozos cada día (6 salas en total, un tapón en cada sala). Espere hasta que el pozo se ve vacío y hasta que no haya agua saliendo del desagüe del pozo. Vuelva a colocar los tapones.

35

APPENDIX D

N.C. Pork Producers EMS Kick-Off Meeting Agenda Agenda for Swine EMS Internal Auditing Training

Auditor’s Toolkit Description Pork Producers Audit Training Evaluations

36

N.C. Pork Producers EMS Kick-Off Meeting

Agenda September 13, 2001 James Sprunt Community College Boyette Building KENANSVILLE 10:00 – 2:30 10:00 – 10:10 Introductions 10:10 – 10:30 Welcome/Thanks/DENR’s perspective- Gary Hunt 10:30 – 10:45 Welcome from Cooperative Extension- Ron Sheffield/Bob Rubin 10:45 – 11:15 A History of ISO 14001/EMS/

NC’s Involvement Beth Graves 11:15- 12:00 Elements of an EMS Barb Satler 12:00 – 1:10 Lunch (on your own) 1:10 – 1:30 Resources Ben King 1:30 – 2:00 Documentation Strategies Suzanne Sessoms 2:00 – 2:30 Coaches and Pilots, logistics, first agenda, assign actions 2:00 – 2:10: McCoy, Simmons, Graves Niemond, Sheffield/Shaffer, King Purser, Sikes, Burke Stroud, Rubin, Pridgeon King, Parsons, Murphy Cowan, Dunham, Satler

2:10 – 2:20: Lane, Shaffer, Graves, McCracken Stokes, Sheffield, Satler Hosking, Johnson, King 2:20 – 2:30 Wrap-up/Questions Barb/All

37

Agenda for Swine EMS Auditing Training – March, 2003 EMS Auditing Audit Definitions/Terminology Reasons to Audit ISO Requirement Audit Process Initiating/Planning the Audit Selecting the Audit Team Scheduling the Audit Reviewing EMS Documentation Creating a Checklist Evaluating the Evidence Opening Meeting Interviews with Key Personnel Observe Operations Review Records Determine Conformance Reporting the Findings When to Report Findings Corrective Action Request (CAR) Audit Summary Report Closing Meeting Corrective Action/Continual Improvement Evaluate Root Cause Records of Closure Lunch Virtual Audit Ground Rules Prepare to Audit Round 1 – Interview with Farm Manager Group Discussion Round 2 – Tour and Interviews with Farm Personnel Group Discussion Round 3 – Interview with Nutrient Applicator/OIC Group Discussion Next Steps

38

Auditor’s Toolkit Description

The following describes the various audit tools including their purpose and interdependence. Audit Planning Matrix The audit planning matrix is used to plan the various phases of the audit from prework through report preparation. The matrix identifies the key players for each activity, the focus areas and a time estimate. This tool is the basis for the audit questions. Documentation Review In order to ensure an effective and efficient audit, a review of the EMS documentation prior to the on-site interviews is essential. If possible, the documentation review should be done remotely at least one week prior to the on-site visit to allow for any adjustments to the schedule or completion of corrective action. As a result of the document review, the auditor will better understand who fulfills the key roles in the EMS and can adjust the audit planning matrix and questionnaire to reflect the actual situation. The documentation review ensures that all elements of the EMS have been considered; however, no objective evidence of implementation or effectiveness can be evaluated by simply reading the documentation. Audit Questions* A list of audit questions and observances along with expected or required responses has been developed to aid the auditor in understanding the interdependencies of the various requirements and where and what objective evidence could be reviewed. The audit questions are based on the audit plan. If more than one role is played by an individual (farm owner is the environmental manager as well as the farm manager), then the auditor will need to extend the interview to cover the questions for each role. Audit Summary* This spreadsheet can be used to log best practices, evidence of conformance, non-conformances or observations (not a non-conformance, but a suggestion). The form ensures that all comments are described next to their respective requirement. This also allows for the auditor to make a judgment as to whether a numbered element is in fact addressed satisfactorily. A mark in the YES box implies that the EMS meets this requirement without any need for change (i.e. only observations noted). A mark in the MINOR box implies that the EMS conforms to the requirement with a couple minor discrepancies. A mark in the NO box implies that sufficient evidence of conformance has not been demonstrated. *The audit questions and audit summary forms include notes on expected or required responses and which questions correspond with which requirement respectively. In order for the form to be used in an audit situation, simply clear the comment column and add your comments.

39

Pork Producers Audit Training March 11, 2003

Evaluation Results in Red.

Speaker(s) showed knowledge of subject strongly agree-(15) agree-(1) strongly disagree-(0) The ideas were clearly presented strongly agree-(12) agree-(4) strongly disagree-(0) Training was interesting and well done strongly agree -(11) agree-(5) strongly disagree-(0) The information I received was useful strongly agree -(9) agree-(7) strongly disagree-(0) Questions were handled appropriately strongly agree -(10) agree-(6) strongly disagree-(0) I have a better understand of the audit process strongly agree -(9) agree-(7) strongly disagree-(0) I have a better understanding of audit criteria strongly agree -(6) agree-(10) strongly disagree-(0) The break-out sessions were helpful strongly agree -(6) agree-(10) strongly disagree-(0) I know what I need to do prior to an audit strongly agree -(2) agree-(14) strongly disagree-(0) The workshop was good use of my time strongly agree-(11) agree -(5) strongly disagree-(0) What did you learn that would be most helpful to you?

1. You must know the operation that you audit 2. There is always an opportunity for improvement 3. Lots of info on what to expect when audited 4. Details of what would be in audit 5. Basic steps required to perform an audit 6. The checklist 7. Better understanding of the EMS 8. Audit procedures – technique 9. How to conduct an audit

The workshop would have been better if........ 1. More photos of the operations for the virtual tour 2. Maybe have a producer that’s been certified make a presentation on its auditing

experience (some war stories) 3. Thought it was very good! 4. It was done extremely well

What other subjects would interest you for future workshops?

1. Observing an actual or mock audit in the field in an actual situation, or viewing a taped audit

2. Training on web based program Provide other comments in the space below.

1. Suzanne did great job! Kept things moving along, made it interesting & fun. 2. Suzanne is engaging and relates well. 3. Good workshop! Loved it!

40

ENVIRONMENTAL

MANAGEMENT

SYSTEMS FOR

PORK

PRODUCERS

WORKSHOP

WEDNESDAY,NOV. 5, 2003

8:30 A.M. – 3 P.M.

Pitt County CooperativeExtension CenterGreenville, N.C.

SPONSORED BY

N.C. Division of Pollution Prevention and EnvironmentalAssistance - Dept. of Environment and Natural Resources

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - Office of Water

EMS PILOT FARM PARTICIPANTS

Beaver Dam Farm - Lee (Sam) Hosking;Cumberland CountyCowan Farms - Doug Cowan; Craven CountyCraven Farms - Allen McCoy; Jones CountyKing Farms - Craig and Kathy King;Duplin CountyLittle Creek Hog Farm Inc. - Chuck Stokes;Pitt CountySarem Farms Inc. - Bundy Lane; Gates CountyTDM Farm #5 - Hog Slats Inc.;Sampson CountyWhite Rock Farm - Rodney Purser;Union County

WHAT IS AN EMS?

An EMS is a tool that provides organizations with amethod to systematically manage their environmentalactivities, products and ser vices and helps anorganization achieve its environmental obligationsand performance goals. An EMS follows a Plan-Do-Check-Act cycle or PDCA. ISO 14001 is aninternational standard adopted in 1996 that manyorganizations use as their model for an EMS.

For more information, visit theDPPEA Web site at: http://www.p2pays.org

“Although EMS has not instantaneously corrected all ofmy problems, it has given me the vision needed to addressenvironmental impacts related to my farm. I feel confidentthat my overall operation will be dramatically enhanced bythe implementation of an EMS.”

--Chuck Stokes, pilot farm participant N.C

. D

IVIS

ION

OF

PO

LL

UT

ION

PR

EV

EN

TIO

NA

ND

EN

VIR

ON

ME

NT

AL

ASS

IST

AN

CE

1639

MA

IL S

ER

VIC

E C

EN

TE

RR

ALE

IGH

NC

276

99-1

639

AD

DR

ESS

SE

RV

ICE

RE

QU

ES

TE

D

DPPEA-FY03-17. 2,000 copies of this public document were printed onrecycled paper at a cost of $173.63, or $0.087 per copy.

AGENDA

Registration 8:30 - 9 a.m.

Welcome 9 - 9:05 a.m.Pitt County Extension Director Mitch Smith

Project Overview 9:05 - 9:35 a.m.Gary Hunt, DPPEAJim Horne, U.S. EPADr. Robert Rubin, N.C. Cooperative Extension

Project Participant Recognition 9:35 - 10:05 a.m.DENR Secretary William G. Ross Jr.

What is an EMS? 10:05 - 10:20 a.m.Beth Graves, DPPEA

Break 10:20 - 10:35 a.m.

Case Studies - EMS Implementation 10:35 - 11:35 a.m.Bundy Lane, Sarem Farms Inc.Chuck Stokes, Little Creek Hog Farm Inc.

Panel Discussion 11:35 - NoonParticipants of the pilot program

Lunch Noon - 1:30 p.m.

EMS Tool Introduction 1:30 - 2 p.m.Norma Murphy, DPPEA

Murphy-Brown/DPPEAContract Grower EMS Tool 2 - 2:20 p.m.

Don Butler, Murphy-Brown LLC

Managing Lagoon Levels 2:20 - 2:50 p.m.John College, Soil & Water Conservation

Next Steps/Wrap-Up 2:50 - 3 p.m.Sharon Johnson, DPPEA

WORKSHOP REGISTRATION

NAME

POSITION TITLE

ORGANIZATION/FARM REPRESENTED

ADDRESS

CITY/STATE/ZIP

TELEPHONE/FAX

E-MAIL ADDRESS

Workshop fee is $15 and includes lunch, breaks andmaterials.

Lunch will be catered by W.G. Simmons and includespork chops, vegetables, dessert and tea.

Please complete and return registration form with acheck payable to “DPPEA” by Oct. 29 to:

Jamie Ragan, DPPEA1639 MAIL SERVICE CENTER

RALEIGH NC 27699-1639(919) 715-6519 • (800) 763-0136 • fax (919) 715-6794

CONTINUING EDUCATION UNITS

This training is acceptable for 0.4 CEU units. Anofficial record of CEUs may be obtained 60 days aftera program by writing the Registrar, Box 7313, NCSU,Raleigh, NC 27695-7313. The request must include asocial security number and a $5 check or money orderpayable to N.C. State University.

DRIVING DIRECTIONS

403 Government Circle, Greenville, NC

IF YOU ARE COMING FROM:

South: Take Hwy 11-13 North to first stop light; pass theairport and take a right onto Belvoir Road. Continuestraight until you come to Old Creek Road. Take a leftand on your left just a short distance, you will see a sign“Pitt County Office Park” - Government Circle.

North: Travel south on Hwy 11 to 33 East. Take a leftonto Hwy 33 East (Belvoir Road) and continue straightuntil you reach Old Creek Road. Take a left and on yourleft just a short distance, you will see a sign “Pitt CountyOffice Park” - Government Circle.

East: Take 33 West off of 264 Bypass and travel two milesuntil you see a sign “Pitt County Office Park.” Take a rightonto Old Creek Road and on your left just a shortdistance, you will see a sign “Pitt County Office Park” -Government Circle.

West: Follow Hwy 264 around to Exit 80 then take a rightonto Hwy 11-13 South and travel 1.4 miles and you willcome to Hwy 33 (Belvoir Road); take a left. Continuestraight until you come to Old Creek Road. Take a leftand on your left a short distance you will see a sign “PittCounty Office Park” - Government Circle.

HOTEL ACCOMODATIONS

Please contact:Jamie Ragan, DPPEA1639 Mail Service CenterRaleigh, NC 27699-1639jamie.ragan@ncmail.net or (919) 715-6519

BEST WESTERN

(252) 752-2378

COMFORT INN

(252) 355-0070

CITY HOTEL AND BISTRO

(252) 355-8300RED ROOF INN

(252) 756-2792

FOR MORE INFORMATION

Registration 8:30 - 9 a.m.

Welcome 9 - 9:05 a.m.Pitt County Extension Director Mitch Smith

Project Overview 9:05 - 9:50 a.m.Gary Hunt, DPPEAJim Horne, U.S. EPADr. Robert Rubin, N.C. Cooperative Extension

Project Participant Recognition 9:50 - 10:05 a.m.Jimmy Carter, Assistant Secretary for Operationsand Development, DENR

What is an EMS? 10:05 - 10:20 a.m.Beth Graves, DPPEA

Break 10:20 - 10:35 a.m.

ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS

FOR PORK PRODUCERS WORKSHOP

WEDNESDAY, NOV. 5, 2003, 8:30 A.M. – 3 P.M.Pitt County Cooperative Extension Center, Greenville, N.C.

WORKSHOP AGENDA

Case Studies - EMS Implementation 10:35 - 11:35 a.m.Bundy Lane, Sarem Farms Inc.Chuck Stokes, Little Creek Hog Farm Inc.

Panel Discussion 11:35 - NoonParticipants of the pilot program

Lunch Noon - 1:30 p.m.

EMS Tool Introduction 1:30 - 2 p.m.Norma Murphy, DPPEA

Murphy-Brown/DPPEAContract Grower EMS Tool 2 - 2:20 p.m.

Don Butler, Murphy-Brown LLC

Managing Lagoon Levels 2:20 - 2:50 p.m.John College, Soil & Water Conservation

Next Steps/Wrap-Up 2:50 - 3 p.m.Sharon Johnson, DPPEA

ANIMAL WASTE OPERATOR CERTIFICATION HOURS: The training provided is suitable to meet the sixhour animal waste system operator training requirement.

1. How did you learn about this workshop? mail e-mail peer referral other professional group Web site

2. Which best describes your work? animal operations federal/state government service provider (consultant, etc.) other other business local government academic

SESSION EVALUATIONS

Rate each session for content and presentation. Circle only one ranking for each. poor fair good excellent

PROJECT OVERVIEWPROJECT OVERVIEWPROJECT OVERVIEWPROJECT OVERVIEWPROJECT OVERVIEWGary Hunt, N.C. Division of Pollution Prevention & Environmental Assistance (DPPEA) 1 2 3 4Jim Horne, U.S. EPADr. Robert Rubin, N.C. Cooperative Extension

WHAWHAWHAWHAWHAT IS AN EMS?T IS AN EMS?T IS AN EMS?T IS AN EMS?T IS AN EMS?Beth Graves, DPPEA 1 2 3 4

CCCCCASE SASE SASE SASE SASE STUDIES - EMS IMPLEMENTTUDIES - EMS IMPLEMENTTUDIES - EMS IMPLEMENTTUDIES - EMS IMPLEMENTTUDIES - EMS IMPLEMENTAAAAATIONTIONTIONTIONTIONBundy Lane, Sarem Farms Inc. 1 2 3 4Chuck Stokes, Little Creek Hog Farm Inc.

PPPPPANEL DISCUSSIONSANEL DISCUSSIONSANEL DISCUSSIONSANEL DISCUSSIONSANEL DISCUSSIONSPilot Farm Program Participants 1 2 3 4

EMS TOOL INTRODUCTIONEMS TOOL INTRODUCTIONEMS TOOL INTRODUCTIONEMS TOOL INTRODUCTIONEMS TOOL INTRODUCTIONNorma Murphy, DPPEA 1 2 3 4

MURPHYMURPHYMURPHYMURPHYMURPHY-BR-BR-BR-BR-BROOOOOWN/DPPEA CWN/DPPEA CWN/DPPEA CWN/DPPEA CWN/DPPEA CONTRAONTRAONTRAONTRAONTRACT GRCT GRCT GRCT GRCT GROOOOOWER EMS TWER EMS TWER EMS TWER EMS TWER EMS TOOLOOLOOLOOLOOLDon Butler, Murphy-Brown LLC 1 2 3 4

MANMANMANMANMANAAAAAGINGINGINGINGING LG LG LG LG L AAAAAGOON LEVELGOON LEVELGOON LEVELGOON LEVELGOON LEVELSSSSSJohn College, Division of Soil & Water Conservation 1 2 3 4

NEXT STEPS/WRAP-UPNEXT STEPS/WRAP-UPNEXT STEPS/WRAP-UPNEXT STEPS/WRAP-UPNEXT STEPS/WRAP-UPSharon Johnson, DPPEA 1 2 3 4

Environmental Management Systemsfor Pork Producers

W O R K S H O P E V A L U A T I O N

GENERAL FEEDBACK

1. The best part of the workshop was: __________________________________________________________________

2. The workshop could have been improved by: ______________________________________________________________

3. The topic I could have done without: (if any) _____________________________________________________________

4. Other topics I would have included: __________________________________________________________________________

poor fair good excellent

5. The amount of information provided was: 1 2 3 4

6. The content was appropriate and relevant for my needs: 1 2 3 4

7. The opportunities for participating were: 1 2 3 4

8. The meeting location and facilities were: 1 2 3 4

9. Food and beverages were: 1 2 3 4

10. Overall, the workshop was: 1 2 3 4

11. Additional comments or questions: __________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS

1. If you are interested in DPPEA contacting you with information on the next phase of the EMS Pork Producers’ Project, please leave your contact information:Name: _____________________________________________________________________________________________Address: _____________________________________________________________________________________________Phone: _____________________________________________________________________________________________E-mail Address: ________________________________________________________________________________________

2.Please add any feedback you may have regarding the EMS tools shown today. ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

3.DPPEA needs assistance from pork producers to evaluate our EMS tools. Would you be interested in evaluating the Aspects/Impacts Manager (AIM) or Pork Producers’ EMStools? If so, please leave your contact information.Name: _____________________________________________________________________________________________Address: _____________________________________________________________________________________________Phone: _____________________________________________________________________________________________E-mail Address: ________________________________________________________________________________________

FOR MORE INFORMATION

Completed evaluation forms and any questions you may have about this event should be directed to:

JAMIE RAGAN, DPPEA, 1639 MAIL SERVICE CENTER, RALEIGH NC 27699-1639(919) 715-6519 • (800) 763-0136 • FAX: (919) 715-6794E-MAIL: Jamie.Ragan@ncmail.net • WEB ADDRESS: http://www.p2pays.org/iso/agriculture/pork/pork.asp

Evaluations: 1. How did you learn about this workshop? Mail (9) E-mail (3) Peer (4) Other (2) Professional group (3) Website (1) 2. Which best describes your work? Animal operations (13) Fed/State government (4) Service Provider (2) Other business (0) Local Government (3) Academic (0) Session Evaluations: Poor Fair Good Excellent Project Overview: 0 3 15 4 (Gary Hunt, Jim Horne, Bob Rubin) What is An EMS? 0 1 16 5 (Beth Graves) Case Studies: 0 0 12 10 (Chuck & Bundy) Panel Discussions: 0 3 11 8 (Pilot Farms) EMS tool Introduction: 0 1 17 4 (Norma Murphy) Murphy Brown: 0 4 10 4 (Don Butler) Managing Lagoon Levels: 0 4 9 9 (John College) Next Steps/ Wrap Up: 0 1 10 7 (Sharon Johnson)

General Feedback: Best Part: All good (2), Lunch (4), Panel Discussion and open question sections (4), Managing Lagoon levels (2), EMS Tool Introduction, Case Studies-Bundy and Chuck (6), informal discussions / questions, learning the requirements and getting new ideas for better management, Improved by: Great Job- no improvement needed, going a little more in-depth, shorter lunch break (4), more focus on economic benefits, more case specific ups and downs, Should have included: none, potential regulatory/legal use of EMS’s, non-calculable financial incentives, update on better management on odor control, Poor Fair Good Excellent The amount of Info Provided: 0 0 17 4 The content was appropriate & relevant: 0 1 20 0 The opportunities for participating: 0 4 10 7 Meeting Location: 0 1 7 13 Food and Beverages: 0 0 0 21 Overall: 0 0 14 7 Additional Comments:

1. Speakers should use microphones 2. Dim lights 3. More detail on EMS’s – a lot of info for someone not already familiar with them 4. More handouts would have been helpful

APPENDIX E

EMS for Pork Producers Tool Press Release Sample Screens from Aspects Impacts Manager

48

Michael F. Easley, Governor William G. Ross Jr., Secretary N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources

Release: Immediate Contact: Diana Kees, (919) 715-6515 D ate: Nov. 12, 2003 Distribution: Statewide

ENVIRONMENTAL AGENCY UNVEILS TOOLS DEVELOPED TO ASSIST PORK PRODUCERS

IN MANAGING ENVIRONMENTAL ACTIVITIES RALEIGH – Following completion of a two-year grant, the N.C. Division of Pollution Prevention and Environmental Assistance (DPPEA) has developed a set of online tools and documents designed to help North Carolina pork producers systematically manage their environmental activities. In 2001, the Office of Water at the Environmental Protection Agency provided funding through a Water Quality Cooperative Agreement for DPPEA to work with eight pilot pork production farms to develop and implement site-specific environmental management systems (EMSs). An EMS is a tool that provides organizations with a method to systematically manage their environmental activities, provides structure, and helps them to achieve environmental obligations and performance goals. An EMS can be used by a wide range of organizations – from manufacturing facilities to service industries to agricultural operations to government agencies. Using experiences gained from these farms as they went through the EMS development and implementation process, DPPEA has developed a comprehensive set of computer-based EMS tools, including work instructions for generic activities; common aspects, impacts, legal requirements and operational controls; and sample objectives and targets for improvements. The tools developed through this process are posted at http://www.p2pays.org/porktool for use by other pork producers. DPPEA worked on the project in cooperation with the N.C. Cooperative Extension Service and the N.C. Division of Soil and Water Conservation. “(An) EMS enables you to look at your overall operation while examining the effectiveness of specific components that allow your farm to function daily,” said Chuck Stokes, owner of Little Creek Hog Farm in Pitt County, one of the pilot farms. “EMS allows us to incorporate a system of checks and balances that will hold us accountable to ourselves and others that will result in a more environmentally efficient farm.” “DENR’s excellent work with this group of farmers has allowed the compilation of a comprehensive group of documents that should enable all different types of pork producers to develop environmental management systems,” said Jim Horne of the U.S. EPA. “We hope this information becomes a national model for pork producers across the United States, and are proud to be associated with the fine work taking place in North Carolina to promote EMS.” Interest in an EMS model for pork producers has increased since the separate agreements signed in 2000 between the North Carolina attorney general’s office and Smithfield Foods and Premium Standard – which, among other things, require both companies to implement an ISO 14001-based EMS on all company-owned farms. ISO 14001 is an international standard adopted in 1996 that many organizations use as their model for an EMS. For more information about this project, please contact Jamie Ragan, DPPEA environmental specialist, at (919) 715-6519 or Jamie.ragan@ncmail.net.

49

50

51

52

53

55