ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIORWASTE MANAGEMENT TECHNOLOGIES C.M. (Mike) Williams Animal and Poultry Waste Management Center Box 7608 North Carolina State University Raleigh, NC 27695-7608 mike_williams@ncsu.edu Introduction Discussions and efforts regarding animal waste
management practices and the impact of animal agriculture on the environment
are at the forefront of issues facing the livestock industry, pork production
in particular. In North Carolina, much
attention directed at pork production is primarily on “alternatives” to the
lagoon/spray field technology. Soil and
water quality issues associated with this technology have been identified to
be: nutrient loading and fate of nitrogen, phosphorus, and metals (copper and
zinc); and, fate of pathogenic bacteria in the manure effluent and air
emissions from animal production facilities.
Air quality issues identified include emissions of ammonia nitrogen,
greenhouse gases, dust and odor. A
recent discussion article (North Carolina State University College of
Agriculture and Life Sciences, 2000) notes that when properly sited, designed,
constructed and managed, lagoon/spray field technology is a reliable method of
treating swine wastes; however, evidence in this same article also shows that
environmental concerns for the soil, water, and air quality variables noted
above need to be critically and objectively examined. The attention directed to this subject area has
resulted in research, development and demonstration efforts by academic
institutions, the private sector, as well as the livestock industry. Primary focus has been on various
alternatives or modifications to traditional best management practices of
animal waste management. A recent
report (North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, 2000),
compiled after several months of deliberations by a stakeholder panel, shows
that such broad-based efforts are underway not only in North Carolina, but
nationally and internationally as well.
On July, 25,
2000 an Agreement was made between the Attorney General of North Carolina and
Smithfield Foods, Inc. and its subsidiaries to, in part, provide resources ($15
million) to North Carolina State University (NCSU) for the development of “Environmentally Superior Technologies” that
may serve as alternatives to traditional lagoon/spray field technology. This paper provides a concise overview and
discussion for some salient aspects of this research initiative. Definition of Environmentally
Superior Technologies The Agreement defines “Environmentally Superior Technologies” as “any technology, or combination of technology that (1) is permittable by the appropriate governmental authority; (2) is determined to be technically, operationally, and economically feasible for an identified category or categories of farms and (3) meets the following performance standards: 1. Eliminate the discharge of
animal waste to surface waters and groundwater through direct discharge,
seepage, or runoff; 2. Substantially eliminate
atmospheric emissions of ammonia; 3. Substantially eliminate
the emission of odor that is detectable beyond the boundaries of the parcel or
tract of land on which the swine farm is located; 4. Substantially eliminate
the release of disease-transmitting vectors and airborne pathogens; and 5. Substantially eliminate
nutrient and heavy metal contamination of soil and groundwater.” It is noteworthy that items 1.-5. are verbatim from
one section of North Carolina House Bill 1480 intended, in part, to “clarify
exceptions to the statewide moratorium” relative to the construction or
expansion of swine farms. As such, it is logical to assume that technologies
determined to be “environmentally superior” per this Agreement, may also be
considered for installation on facilities wishing to expand swine production in
North Carolina. These definitions (items 1.-5.), while comprehensive,
are open to broad interpretation and present numerous challenges. The most challenging task may well be the
interpretation of “substantially eliminate”.
No two stakeholders impacted by pork production are likely to have the
same definition of “substantially eliminate” for each of the environmental
variables referenced. The final
determination, however, of what “substantially eliminate” means quantitatively
is likely to be made by the North Carolina Department of Environment and
Natural Resources (NCDENR) since the technology, by Agreement definition, must
also be “permittable”. A second concern is valid measurement for some of the environmental variables noted. Performance verification (and any subsequent monitoring for compliance purposes) of odor emissions, ammonia emissions, and disease-transmitting vectors and airborne pathogens present unique challenges. There is currently much scientific debate regarding protocols and methodology for making these measurements. Further, the methodologies utilized for each can be expensive and often represent single-point-in-time determinations. This is an issue for air emissions in particular since it is well established that such emissions can be highly variable within a given day dependent upon many environmental conditions (wind, humidity, temperature, precipitation, etc.) at a farm site. While these issues are indeed challenging, it is recognized that they must be addressed. To help meet these challenges, it will be critically important for the pork industry, university researchers, NCDENR, and other impacted stakeholders to maintain close communication and engage in professional scientific debate on this subject as new technologies and verification methods are developed, evaluated and demonstrated. As such, the NCSU initiative with this Agreement involves an advisory review panel that is represented by: experienced researchers in the areas of animal waste management and environmental science and public health; NCDENR; environmental and community interest; business management; and, swine agribusiness. Operational feasibility There is little debate that one advantage of the lagoon/spray field system is operational simplicity. “Environmentally Superior Technologies” are likely to be more operationally complex and require additional operator skill, training and certification. Operational feasibility may also be interpreted differently for various “category or categories of farms” (described in subsequent section of this paper). The Agreement does not contain a definition of operational feasibility, nor does it contain a listing of factors for consideration in making the determination (as it does for economic feasibility). The history of operational requirements during the performance verification process will be well documented for all technologies studied during this initiative and considered on a case by case basis for operational feasibility prior to making a technology determination for “environmentally superior” status. Factors considered will include technical skill (training and certification) and hours/day required to operate and maintain the technology, technology performance during adverse weather conditions (including but not limited to periods of power outage, excess rainfall, freezing temperatures, etc.). Economic feasibility The
Agreement is very specific regarding the determination of economic
feasibility. The following relevant
information must be considered: 1. “The projected 10-year
annualized cost (including capital, operation and maintenance costs) of each
alternative technology expressed as a cost per 1000 pounds of steady state live
weight for each category of farm system; 2. The projected 10-year
annualized cost (including capital, operation and maintenance costs) per 1000
pounds of steady state live weight for each category of farm system of a lagoon
and sprayfield system that is designed, constructed and operated in accordance
with current laws, regulations, and standards, including NRCS design,
construction and waste utilization standards; 3. Projected revenues,
including income from waste treatment byproduct utilization, together with any
costs savings from the new technology; 4. Available cost-share
monies or other financial or technical assistance from federal, state or other
public sources, including tax incentives or credits, and; 5. The impact that the
adoption of alternative technologies may have on the competitiveness of the
North Carolina pork industry as compared to the pork industry in other states.” These are important economic variables and will require considerable effort to determine. The Agreement specifies that an advisory review panel, separate from the panel described earlier, will be involved in evaluating the economic feasibility of the potential alternative technologies. Representation on this panel must include experts in economics from: academia; environmental interest; government; and, the swine industry. Category or categories of
farms Category(ies) of farm(s) is referenced several times
throughout the Agreement. The Agreement
specifies that such categories “may be determined based on farm size,
geographic location, the geographic concentration of the hog population, the
type of farm, and any other factors” deemed appropriate. This is an important determination since
some of these variables may significantly impact the economic feasibility of a
technology for a given farm category.
The Agreement also specifies that all farms covered by the Agreement
must be prioritized for conversion to “Environmentally Superior Technologies”
based “on appropriate environmental, engineering and operational factors”. Progress to date and
discussion This paper was compiled in early December, 2000; the
following describes activities that have occurred since July 25, 2000 relative
to the NCSU research initiative of the Agreement and discussion regarding the
next 18 months of the initiative. Both advisory review panels have been appointed. A total of 21 members make up both panels
(the economic panel is made up of 5 individuals). The initial 5 technologies for “installation beginning
immediately” per the Agreement have been selected. Those selections were based primarily on work previously
conducted through NSCU CALS programs for each of the technologies (Williams,
2000). The technology teams for these 5
systems have made presentations and provided documents to the advisory review
panels as well as responded to questions and concerns voiced by these
panels. A general description for these
technologies are: 1) a covered in-ground ambient anaerobic digester; 2) an
upflow biofiltration system; 3) a sequencing batch reactor process; 4) constructed
wetlands treatment; and 5) high temperature anaerobic digestion. Systems 1 and
4 are installed on commercial swine farms in North Carolina in Johnston and
Onslow counties, respectively.
Tentative sites have been identified for each of the 3 additional
technologies. Plans are for all 5 to be
operational by Summer 2001. The Agreement specifies that an additional 5-6
technologies will be selected for performance verification by early 2001. In response to a request for proposals
issued by NCSU in September 2000, approximately 100 technology suppliers
applied for consideration. Those
proposals have been competitively reviewed by over 30 professionals from across
the U.S. It is anticipated that, based
on those reviews, and review and recommendation by the advisory review panels,
that an additional 5-6 (perhaps more, depending upon budgetary restraints) will
be selected by early 2001. Again, it is
planned that these systems will be operational on farms and ready for
performance verification by Summer 2001.
These projected deadlines are aggressive. The Agreement, however, specifies that a report is due by July 25, 2002 which contains “(1) a finding that a technology or combination of technologies is an Environmentally Superior Technology or Technologies; (2) an identification of the category or categories of farms covered by the determination; (3) a determination (made in consultation with DENR) that the technology or technologies are capable of being permitted by DENR and any other appropriate governmental authority; and (4) a schedule for implementation of the Environmentally Superior Technology or Technologies as soon as possible”. It is essential for everyone that is involved and/or impacted by this initiative, including pork producers, the animal agriculture industry, environmental groups, neighbors to animal operations, regulatory agencies, elected officials, university researchers, technology suppliers, etc., to recognize that many complex tasks must be accomplished prior to issuing this report. As described in this paper, these tasks will involve not only development and verification of new waste treatment technologies but also development and verification of new environmental parameter measurement methodologies as well. Consideration and review of potential technologies must be comprehensive and well justified such that resources (human and financial) are not wasted. The tasks will involve major construction projects with necessary permit procurement. And finally, the performance verifications must be subjected to valid scientific methodology including replication of data under stringent conditions of quality assurance and quality control. While every effort will be made to meet the deliverables described in the Agreement to identify “Environmentally Superior Technologies”, the stakes are too high for everyone that is involved and/or impacted by this initiative for short cuts to be taken or premature decisions to be made relative to any of these described tasks. References North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources.
2000. Framework for the conversion of anaerobic lagoons and sprayfields
- technology panel final report.
Published by North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural
Resources; contact Dennis Ramsey. North Carolina State University College of Agriculture
and Life Sciences. 2000. Considerations for waste treatment
technology conversion by the North Carolina swine industry. Published by North Carolina State University
College of Agriculture and Life Sciences; contact Eric Young. Williams, C.M.
2000. Research and education
efforts related to the conversion of anaerobic swine waste lagoons and
sprayfields to alternative technology. Published by North Carolina State
University College of Agriculture and Life Sciences; contact Mike Williams.
|