WASTE TREATMENT WASTE TREATMENT (No.) CODE 629 NATURAL RESOURCES - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
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
(No.) CODE 629
NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE CONSERVATION PRACTICE STANDARD
NRCS Mary King, Andre Hanna
C l l Ronnie Williams
PE Todd Boehne, CRA
Provide criteria for any size feed storage area
and estimating “first flush” capture and estimating first flush capture
b i f i d i d i h h
first generation standard
Not intended for CAFO sized operations
Leachate and Runoff Control (NY) Leachate and Runoff Control (NY)
– Used SLAMM and P8 urban stormwater models Fi ld b i f h ki f – Field observations of what was working on farms
– Milkhouse waste treatment – Alternative waste treatment – Feed Storage Area waste treatment
agricultural waste.
facilities and/processes as part of an agricultural waste management system to:
nutrient content, organic strength, and/or pathogen levels
emissions;
p yp
application alternatives; and
manage leachate and contaminated runoff emanating from livestock feed storage areas.
High Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD5)
12,000 to 80,000 mg/l 200 to 500 mg/I 500 mg/I
Landfills Landfills
http://www.greenstar.ie/htm/02_business_custo mers/bio_waste_composting_popup2.htm Environmental Problems with Silage Effluent. Robert E. Graves, Professor, Agricultural and Biological Engineering. The Pennsylvania State University. Peter J. Vanderstappen, Civil Engineer, Soil Conservation Service (SCS). Lebanon, Pennsylvania
Landfills Landfills
– 200 times stronger than untreated sewage – 12,000 to 80,000 mg/L – Animal lot runoff from concrete = 1,000 mg/L
l – as low as pH 4.0
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.
and operation that successfully limits environmental impact
determine appropriate management practices
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)
impact:
l l h d ff h – Silage leachate and runoff characteristics – Loading to filter strips for sizing – Performance of filter strips at these loadings – Effective partitioning of high and low strength waste
– 3 sites (Arlington ARS, USDA Dairy Forage, 3rd 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
– 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
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.
volume is called the “First Flush”.
Research completed at Cornell University indicates that a “first flush” exists for BOD5 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:
Rainfall Collected (in) Reduction in Loading COD TKN NH4 TP
p g and loading/operation recommendations
0.05 27% 25% 28% 24% 0.1 38% 37% 41% 37%
leachate/runoff collection design and i
0.15 43% 43% 46% 42% 0.2 51% 55% 55% 52%
recommendations
0.25 59% 67% 63% 61%
Reductions in loading are based on collection of a certain volume of rainfall
Model silage/leachate runoff
collection of a certain volume of rainfall, the thought is to then reduce the filter strip size based on the loading reduction
Investigate feedpad subsurface leaching
– Determine the leaching potential of feedpad designs – Evaluate collection system designs Evaluate collection system designs
(alternatives to filter strips) (alternatives to filter strips)
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
Moved current sections around to follow
g g
Feed Storage Runoff Treatment Area Ratio vs. Distance to Feature
70 80 90 100
.Feed Storage Pads, Bunkers & Trench Silos Feed Storage Bags
tment rage Area) x
30 40 50 60
Runoff Treat ent Feed Sto
10 20 30
eed Storage rea/Permane 00
100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
Surface Flow Distance to Feature
Note 1
Figure 1. Sizing Feed Storage Runoff Treatment Areas for Contaminated Runoff (Fe Ar 10
Note 1 The distance to the feature is considered as the surface flow length from the Note 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.
VTA slopes aligned with the VTA standard bl dd d f d
sizing and expanded to include all sizes of f ili i facilities
1. Feed Storage Area Size ≤ 1 1 A Si
Note 1
Table 2 Vegetated Treatment Area (VTA) Criteria
Feed Storage Area (FSA) ≤ 1 acre >1 acre Any Size Note 1
2.5 ft. ≥ 20% 2.5 ft. ≥ 20% 2.5 ft. ≥ 20% Thickness % Fines ≥ 20% ≥ 20% ≥ 20%
0 5% - 6% 0 5% - 6% 0.5% - 6% 0.5% 6% 0.5% 6%
1st Flush Collected None 0.05 inch 100% 50% 100% 80% N/A 100% 0.10 inch 0.15 inch 0.20 inch inch 40% 30% 0% 0% 60% 40% 20% 0% 85% 70% 55% 40%
Wells 50 ft 50 ft 50 ft Wells Sinkholes Saturation Bedrock 50 ft. 400 ft. 2.5 ft. 2.5 ft. 50 ft. 400 ft. 2.5 ft. 2.5 ft. 50 ft. 400 ft. 5 ft. 5 ft.
Note 1: Intended to assist in meeting clean water act requirements.
Soil Thickness increased to 30 based on research
fi fl h capture some first flush
flushing the nutrients downstream g
635
All contaminated runoff shall be delivered (via All contaminated runoff shall be delivered (via gravity or pump) to a feed storage runoff treatment area treatment area
according to a nutrient management plan.
635
The conveyance system to the vegetated The conveyance system to the vegetated treatment area shall be designed for a minimum flow rate produced by the runoff minimum flow rate produced by the runoff from 25% of the peak flow of the 25‐year, 24‐ hour storm event hour storm event. The remaining portion of the 25‐year, 24‐hour ff hi h i t d t h li ibl runoff, which is expected to have negligible levels of contaminants, shall be diverted d th VTA i i around the VTA in a non‐erosive manner so as not to inundate the VTA.
635
The vegetated treatment area may be reduced The vegetated treatment area may be reduced if the first flush of contaminated runoff volume is collected and land applied according volume is collected and land applied according to a nutrient management plan. See Table 2 for minimum VTA sizing for minimum VTA sizing. If the flow depth over the VTA is maintained at 1 i h l f 25% f th k fl f th 1 inch or less for 25% of the peak flow for the 25‐year, 24‐hour storm event, the VTA can be h lf f th VTA i d t i d f T bl 2 half of the VTA size determined from Table 2.
635
and Operation and Operation Only slopes from 0.5% to 6% may be considered as part of the treatment area considered as part of the treatment area. No additional nutrients shall be added to the t t d t t t th th vegetated treatment area, other than contaminated runoff accounted for in the i i f th VTA sizing of the VTA.
635
l d d at operations regulated under NR 243 The VTA requires a spreader every 200 feet to ensure sheet flow and prevent rilling A greater ensure sheet flow and prevent rilling. A greater interval may be justified based on uniformity of slope and ability to maintain maximum flow d th depth. A minimum vegetated buffer length of 35 feet is required at the end of the discharge point of the required at the end of the discharge point of the VTA if the discharge point is within 100 feet of a surface water feature.
Capture all leachate i fl h ll i d d ll
VTA reduction
Continue to collect research data which may lead to future standard changes