WASTE TREATMENT WASTE TREATMENT (No.) CODE 629 NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE CONSERVATION PRACTICE STANDARD
629 Team 629 Team • NRCS – Mary King Andre Hanna NRCS Mary King, Andre Hanna Ronnie Williams • DATCP – • LCD – Paul Klose C l l • DNR – Gretchen Wheat • UW ‐ Madison – Dr. Rebecca Larson • PE – Todd Boehne CRA PE Todd Boehne, CRA
Revision Goals Revision Goals • Provide criteria for any size feed storage area Provide criteria for any size feed storage area • Incorporate new research data for sizing VTAs and estimating “first flush” capture and estimating first flush capture • Validate or include criteria based on field observations of practices designed with the b i f i d i d i h h first generation standard • Finalize draft companion document
First Generation Standard First Generation Standard • Not intended for CAFO sized operations Not intended for CAFO sized operations • Found little monitoring data on Feed Storage Leachate and Runoff Control (NY) Leachate and Runoff Control (NY) – Used SLAMM and P8 urban stormwater models – Field observations of what was working on farms Fi ld b i f h ki f • Combined with other Ag Waste treatments – Milkhouse waste treatment – Alternative waste treatment – Feed Storage Area waste treatment
I. Definition • The mechanical chemical or biological treatment of • The mechanical, chemical, or biological treatment of agricultural waste. II. Purpose • To use mechanical, chemical, or biological treatment facilities and/processes as part of an agricultural waste management system to: • improve ground and surface water quality by reducing the nutrient content, organic strength, and/or pathogen levels of agricultural waste; • improve air quality by reducing odors and gaseous emissions; • produce value added byproducts; p yp • facilitate desirable waste handling, storage, or land application alternatives; and • manage leachate 1 and contaminated runoff emanating manage leachate and contaminated runoff emanating from livestock feed storage areas .
Manage leachate and Manage leachate and contaminated runoff contaminated runoff emanating from emanating from livestock feed storage livestock feed storage areas . areas
What does leachate look like?
What does leachate look like?
What does leachate look like?
What does leachate look like?
Why Do We Care? High Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD 5 ) • 200 times stronger than untreated sewage • Animal lot runoff from concrete = 1,000 mg/L 12,000 to 80,000 mg/l 200 to 500 mg/I 500 mg/I Landfills Landfills Landfills Landfills http://www.greenstar.ie/htm/02_business_custo Environmental Problems with Silage Effluent. Robert E. Graves, Professor, Agricultural and Biological Engineering. The Pennsylvania State University. Peter J. mers/bio_waste_composting_popup2.htm Vanderstappen, Civil Engineer, Soil Conservation Service (SCS). Lebanon, Pennsylvania
Why Do We Care? • High Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD 5 ) – 200 times stronger than untreated sewage – 12,000 to 80,000 mg/L – Animal lot runoff from concrete = 1,000 mg/L • Acidic – as low as pH 4.0 l • High Ammonia – Directly toxic to fish Directly toxic to fish – Cell death in the central nervous system – Worst conditions occur when leachate enters streams during low flows and dilution of leachate is low. • High Nitrogen & Phosphorus
Research Needs Little information known to provide producers with collection/treatment design • and operation that successfully limits environmental impact • Currently cannot effectively partition waste stream (high and low strength) to determine appropriate management practices Filter strips have been shown to reduce impact to surface water, but we are still • limited in our design abilities – Reductions are mainly due to infiltration reductions in overall surface flow entering surface water Reductions are mainly due to infiltration, reductions in overall surface flow entering surface water sources thereby reduces loading (general mass reduction reaching surface waters) – Limited reduction in large particles due to trapping, very limited reduction due to plant uptake Proper sizing of filter strips can be determined to limit surface outflow; however this requires – infiltration and may impact groundwater if the loading is too high (research has shown significant infiltration and may impact groundwater if the loading is too high (research has shown significant leaching effects at a depth of 1ft and 2.5ft) • Requirements needed in order to design a system with reduced environmental impact: – Silage leachate and runoff characteristics l l h d ff h – Loading to filter strips for sizing – Performance of filter strips at these loadings – Effective partitioning of high and low strength waste first flush effect (shown to possibly exist but not examined for more than a few storm events) • • Use of sensors to partition based on strength of waste
Current Research Current Research • Silage leachate/runoff characterization – 3 sites (Arlington ARS, USDA Dairy Forage, 3 rd private WI Dairy) – First 2 systems installed in the fall, removed for winter to y , protect sampling equipment, all 3 will be reinstalled in the spring – Runoff routed from feedpad to a collection point; measure p p ; flow rate and collect samples throughout the storm event to determine mass balance of flow of contaminants – Data collected from each site for a minimum of 1 year • Filter strip – To be installed at USDA dairy forage spring 2012 – Investigate loading impacts of 2 ‐ 3 different filter strip Investigate loading impacts of 2 3 different filter strip designs
Site 1: A li Arlington ARS t ARS
Site 2: USDA Dairy USDA Dairy Forage Prairie du Sac
Not All Runoff Is the Same • Typically, the stormwater that initially runs off an area will be initially runs off an area will be more polluted (hotter) than the stormwater that runs off at a later time during a runoff event. • This initial contaminated runoff volume is called the “First Flush”.
Research completed at Cornell University indicates that a “first flush” exists for BOD 5 from feed storage areas.
Data Produced – THIS DATA IS PRELIMINARY BUT IS AN EXAMPLE OF HOW THE DATA CAN BE USED Data will also be used to: Reduction in Loading Rainfall Collected (in) • Make filter strip design p g COD TKN NH 4 TP and loading/operation 0.05 27% 25% 28% 24% recommendations 0.1 38% 37% 41% 37% • Make silage • Make silage leachate/runoff 0.15 43% 43% 46% 42% collection design and 0.2 51% 55% 55% 52% operation i 0.25 59% 67% 63% 61% recommendations Reductions in loading are based on • Model silage/leachate Model silage/leachate collection of a certain volume of rainfall collection of a certain volume of rainfall, runoff the thought is to then reduce the filter strip size based on the loading reduction
Proposed/Future Research Proposed/Future Research • Investigate feedpad subsurface leaching Investigate feedpad subsurface leaching – Determine the leaching potential of feedpad designs – Evaluate collection system designs Evaluate collection system designs • Investigate innovative treatment designs (alternatives to filter strips) (alternatives to filter strips) • Assess ability of sensors to partition leachate/runoff based on concentration leachate/runoff based on concentration – System designed by senior design students, to be evaluated in the lab followed by full scale evaluation y
Changes Changes • Moved current sections around to follow Moved current sections around to follow other standards, general criteria first • Site investigations will follow 313 language • Figure 1 for sizing VTA was removed g g
Feed Storage Runoff Treatment Area Ratio vs. Distance to Feature . rage Area) x 100 90 Feed Storage Pads, Bunkers & Trench Silos tment 80 Feed Storage Bags 70 Runoff Treat ent Feed Sto 60 50 40 30 30 rea/Permane eed Storage 20 10 0 00 (Fe 10 Ar 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 Note 1 Surface Flow Distance to Feature Figure 1. Sizing Feed Storage Runoff Treatment Areas for Contaminated Runoff Note 1 Note The distance to the feature is considered as the surface flow length from the The distance to the feature is considered as the surface flow length from the feed storage area to lakes, ponds, wetlands, open channel flow, grassed waterways, streams, sinkholes, and karst features.
Note 1 The distance to the feature is considered as the surface flow length from the feed storage area to lakes, ponds, wetlands, open channel flow, grassed waterways, streams, sinkholes, and karst features.
Changes Changes • VTA slopes aligned with the VTA standard VTA slopes aligned with the VTA standard • Table added for Vegetated Treatment Area bl dd d f d sizing and expanded to include all sizes of f facilities ili i
Recommend
More recommend
