development of environmentally superior technologies

Development of Environmentally Superior Technologies

Phase I Report for Technology Determination per Agreements Between the Attorney General of North Carolina

and Smithfield Foods, Premium Standard Farms and Frontline Farmers

July 26, 2004

TABLE OF CONTENTS page List of Tables ......................................................................................................................1 List of Figures .....................................................................................................................2 Letter of Transmittal ...........................................................................................................3 Preface.................................................................................................................................4 Summary .............................................................................................................................6 1.0 Introduction...................................................................................................................8 2.0 Candidate Environmentally Superior Technology Descriptions ..................................10 3.0 Technology Determinations and Performance Standards.............................................20 4.0 Technology Permittability and Category or Categories of Farms ................................25 5.0 Phase 1 Environmentally Superior Technology Determinations and Contingencies ...27 6.0 Next Steps and Environmentally Superior Technologies Implementation Schedule ...29 Acknowledgements.............................................................................................................30 Tables..................................................................................................................................31

Phase I Technology Determination Report

List of Tables (does not include Tables in the Appendices) page Table 1. Conventional farm sites and Environmentally Superior Technology experimental site information (Phase 1 Technology Determinations) ..................................................31 Table 2. Environmentally Superior Technology project status (July 2004) ....................32 .......................................................................................................................................... Table 3. Environmentally Superior Technology candidate projects demonstrated performance for solids, organic matter and nutrients (Phase 1 Technology Determinations)..............33 Table 4. Environmentally Superior Technology candidate projects demonstrated performance for odor reduction (Phase 1 Technology Determinations)...............................................34 Table 5. Environmentally Superior Technology candidate projects demonstrated performance for reductions in pathogenic microorganisms (Phase 1 Technology Determinations) ....35 Table 6. Environmentally Superior Technology performance for ammonia reduction (Phase 1 Technology Determinations) ...........................................................................................36 Table 7. Environmentally Superior Technology candidate project operational feasibility information (Phase 1 Technology Determinations).........................................................38

1


List of Figures page Figure 1. Process Flow Diagram for Barham farm ...............................................................11 Figure 2. Ambient Temperature Anaerobic Digester ...........................................................11 Figure 3. Nitrification Biofilters............................................................................................11 Figure 4. Greenhouse for Tomato Production .......................................................................11 Figure 5. Process Flow Diagram for “BEST” – Corbett # 1 .................................................12 Figure 6 a & b. Corbett Farm Unit 1, screw-press separator and tangential flow settling system ..............................................................................................12 Figure 7. Process Flow Diagram for “BEST” – Corbett # 3 & 4 ..........................................13 Figure 8 a & b. Corbett Farm Units 3 and 4, Filtramat separator and Combustion Plant ...........................................................................................................13 Figure 9. Process Flow Diagram of Belt Removal System ...................................................14 Figure 10. Belt Removal System...........................................................................................14 Figure 11. Process Flow Diagram for Belt Removal System................................................15 Figure 12. Belt Removal System...........................................................................................15 Figure 13. Process Flow Diagram for EKOKAN technology ...............................................16 Figure 14. Biofilter Tanks .....................................................................................................16 Figure 15. Process Flow Diagram of ORBIT (HSAD) ........................................................17 Figure 16. HSAD...................................................................................................................17 Figure 17. Process Flow Diagram of Reciprocating Wetlands..............................................18 Figure 18. Top view of reciprocating wetland cell................................................................18 Figure 19. Process Flow Diagram of Super Soils technology..............................................19 Figure 20 a-c. Super Soils technology components ..............................................................19

2


July 26, 2004 TO ALL INTERESTED PARTIES: This report was compiled pursuant to Sections III.B.5 and III.B.6 of Agreements, dated July 25, 2000 and September 30, 2000 between the Attorney General of North Carolina and Smithfield Foods, Inc. and Premium Standard Farms, Inc., respectively. Copies are transmitted on this date to the North Carolina Attorney General, Smithfield Foods, Premium Standard Farms, and Frontline Farmers. A copy is also transmitted to the North Carolina Environmental Review Commission. A full copy of this report is on file in the North Carolina State University (NCSU) Animal & Poultry Waste Management Center (APWMC) administrative office located in room 134 Scott Hall on the NCSU north campus. A complete electronic copy will be posted on the NCSU College of Agriculture and Life Sciences Waste Management Programs web site http://www.cals.ncsu.edu/waste_mgt/ within 30 business days of today’s date. Respectfully submitted, C.M. (Mike) Williams, Ph.D. Director APWMC, Agreements Designee

3

http://www.cals.ncsu.edu/waste_mgt/


PREFACE Research efforts to identify and implement “Environmentally Superior Technologies” (EST) were initiated in 2000 by the Attorney General of North Carolina by an agreement with Smithfield Foods and its subsidiaries, and a similar agreement with Premium Standard Farms. A third agreement, related to this initiative was established between the Attorney General of North Carolina and Frontline Farmers in 2002. C.M. Williams serves as the “Designee” as described in the agreements with responsibility for the identification and development of Environmentally Superior Technologies. The report herein comprises a Technology Determination Report as described in the Agreements: a written determination that contains a finding relative to a technology or combination of technologies candidacy as an Environmentally Superior Technology or Technologies. The findings are based on laboratory and field environmental performance data. Economic reports have been compiled for the targeted technologies, but that analysis is still underway. Teams primarily comprised of faculty and staff from North Carolina State University, the University of North Carolina – Chapel Hill, Duke University, United States Department of Agriculture, and professionals from Research Triangle Institute International (RTI) conducted the studies. A full service environmental and agricultural engineering firm, Cavanaugh & Associates, P.A. served as Project Technical Manager with responsibility of permit and construction management for the candidate projects located on commercial scale farms. The technology determinations and implementation contingencies described in this report are the results of critical review of this research-based information and data and consultation and input by a peer review panel appointed by the Designee. The panel is made up of individuals with expertise in animal waste management as well as individuals with an interest in the development of Environmentally Superior Technologies. The panel’s representation is comprised of academic research scientists, engineers, public health and public law experts, and economists. In addition, individuals representing community interests, environmental interests, North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, agribusiness, farm owners and swine contract growers (Frontline Farmers), and the companies (Smithfield Foods and Premium Standard Farms) are on the appointed panel. Panel members and their affiliations are listed in Appendix E. This report represents a Phase 1 technology determination series. Several technologies continue to be evaluated as candidate Environmentally Superior Technologies and for those projects data continue to be collected, analyzed, and reviewed. Over the course of the next year, we will have initiatives underway to complete the analysis of these candidate technologies. Primarily, we will be focusing on a continued technical evaluation, and evaluation of whether there is cost reduction potential for the technologies identified as conditionally meeting the technical feasibility performance standards and named in this Phase 1 report. In conjunction with this effort, we will continue to evaluate the economic feasibility data and establish criteria to determine whether the technologies identified in the Phase 1 report are economically feasible per the terms and conditions of the Agreements. We will also be continuing with the goals of this overall initiative. A range of options exists

4


for this process, including multiple final technology determinations, contingent determinations, and consideration of operational technologies not funded by this initiative, but which there is available objective environmental and economic data, as potential EST. The following abbreviations and acronyms are used frequently throughout this report:

• Agreements – Agreements between the Attorney General of North Carolina and Smithfield Foods, Premium Standard Farms, and Frontline Farmers

• EST – Environmentally Superior Technologies • Designee - C. M. (Mike) Williams, as appointed per the Agreements • NCDENR – North Carolina Department of Environment & Natural Resources

5


Summary Research efforts to identify and implement “Environmentally Superior Technologies” (EST) were initiated in 2000 by the Attorney General of North Carolina by an agreement with Smithfield Foods and its subsidiaries, and a similar agreement with Premium Standard Farms. A third agreement was established between the Attorney General of North Carolina and Frontline Farmers in 2002. This report comprises a Technology Determination Report as described in the Agreements: a written determination that contains a finding relative to a technology or combination of technologies candidacy as an Environmentally Superior Technology or Technologies. The findings are based on environmental performance data. Environmentally Superior Technologies, per the Agreements, must also be economically feasible, and that aspect of the study is underway but yet to be completed (summarized in Appendix B of this report). Teams of researchers from North Carolina State University, the University of North Carolina – Chapel Hill, Duke University, United States Department of Agriculture, and professionals from Research Triangle Institute International (RTI) conducted and/or are continuing to conduct the studies. The technology determinations and implementation contingencies described in this report are the results of critical review of this research-based information and data and consultation and input by a peer review panel. The panel is made up of individuals with expertise in animal waste management as well as individuals with an interest in the development of Environmentally Superior Technologies. The panel’s representation is comprised of academic research scientists, engineers, public health and public law experts, and economists. In addition, individuals representing community interests, environmental interests, North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, agribusiness, farm owners and swine contract growers (Frontline Farmers), and the companies (Smithfield Foods and Premium Standard Farms) are on the panel. This report represents a Phase 1 technology determination series, several technologies continue to be evaluated as candidate Environmentally Superior Technologies and for those projects data continue to be collected, analyzed, and reviewed. To be identified as an unconditional Environmentally Superior Technology pursuant to the terms of the Agreement, a technology must meet specific technical, operational and economic feasibility standards. Over the course of the next year we will have initiatives underway to complete the economic and operational analysis for the Phase 1 technologies and the technical, operational, and economic analysis for all remaining candidate technologies. Primarily, we will be focusing on a continued technical evaluation, and evaluation of whether there is cost reduction potential for the technologies identified in this report as meeting the Environmentally Superior Technology technical feasibility performance standards. In conjunction with this effort, we will continue to evaluate the economic reports that have been generated, and establish appropriate criteria to evaluate whether the technologies identified in this report as meeting the technical feasibility standards are also economically feasible.

6


The information and data provided herein indicates that two of the technologies considered in the Phase 1 determinations are shown to be capable of meeting the Agreements technical performance standards that define an Environmentally Superior Technology. Those technologies are: 1) the solids separation / nitrification–denitrification / soluble phosphorus removal system (“Super Soils” technology) and 2) the high solids anaerobic digester system (“ORBIT” technology). The data also indicates that, with technical modifications and/or combination of some of the technology unit processes, additional technologies considered in the Phase 1 determinations may meet the technical performance criteria. Collectively, this represents a significant milestone and justification to proceed forward with the following next steps:

1. Identify company owned farm(s) for installment and evaluation of a proposed revised cost “Super Soils” technology.

2. Establish a framework such that the “ORBIT” technology can operate and process solids from the “Super Soils” or from other candidate technologies generating solids which require further processing of these materials to meet the technical performance criteria.

3. Establish specific criteria to be used in making economic feasibility determinations, pursuant to the technology determination contingencies noted in Section 5.0 of this report applicable to the technologies described above, and also for application to the remaining candidate technologies.

4. Conclude the technical performance and economic feasibility analysis for these and all remaining candidate technologies as soon as possible and subsequently identify reasonable modifications, combinations, if required and if possible, for the technologies to be unconditionally “Environmentally Superior.”

5. Identify potential incentives, public policy, and markets related to the sale of byproducts (including energy) generated by the 2 technologies described above as well as the candidate technologies still under evaluation pursuant to the Agreements. Also identify legal and institutional obstacles that must be addressed to maximize the revenue potential of these byproducts.

6. Begin, and if possible complete over the next year, development of state permit conditions as well as proposed National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit conditions (if required) for the technologies described above and also for any additional technology under consideration that may meet the Environmentally Superior Technology criteria in the Agreements.

7. Establish a plan for implementation that describes which farms in North Carolina must adopt Environmentally Superior Technology and over what time profile. The plan should include a mechanism to monitor both environmental and economic performance, a schedule for implementation, and a discussion of how the timing of implementation affects the economic feasibility criteria discussed in Section 3.0 of this report.

7


1.0 Introduction Agreements between the Attorney General of North Carolina and Smithfield Foods (Smithfield), Premium Standard Farms (PSF), and Frontline Farmers1 provided resources for the identification, development, environmental performance verification, economic feasibility analysis, and demonstration of candidate “Environmentally Superior Technologies” (EST). Performance standards defined in the Agreements mandate that successful EST address environmental variables including the discharge of animal waste to surface waters and groundwater; emission of ammonia; emission of odor; release of disease-transmitting vectors and airborne pathogens; and nutrient and heavy metal contamination of soil and groundwater. Comprehensive determinations of economic feasibility are also mandated by the Agreements. Targeted economic variables include projected 10-year annualized cost for each technology; projected revenues from byproduct utilization; available cost-share monies; and the impact that the adoption of the EST may have on the competitiveness of the North Carolina pork industry as compared to the pork industry in other states. Selection of EST candidates to undergo performance verification and economic analysis involved a request for proposals that was issued nationwide to research institutions and industry. Selections were based on terms and conditions of the Agreements and competitive review (outside ad hoc review) as well as review by the Advisory Panel described above. Collectively, this process yielded 18 EST candidates. Subsequently, 11 of the candidate EST have been, or are in the process of being, studied on commercial scale site locations in eastern North Carolina. Three of the candidates have been studied on pilot scale NCSU laboratory or research farm sites; one of the candidates is scheduled for analysis on a NCSU farm research site later this year. Three of the candidate technologies have been excluded from the evaluation process primarily due to challenges not associated with environmental performance of the system. Detail progress reports describing this initiative between the dates of July 25, 2000 and July 25, 2003 have been previously published.2 Environmental performance data procurement and economic assessment by the project investigators described in the preface has occurred for several of the candidate technologies and the results have been published in the referenced progress reports and other scientific media.3 In addition to these projects, technologies not funded directly by this initiative but under development by Smithfield in Utah (bio-fuel from manure project), PSF in Missouri (several technologies per a consent decree between PSF and the state of Missouri and USEPA), Sustainable North Carolina and Frontline Farmers (closed loop swine waste management system located in eastern North Carolina) are being followed as potential EST.

1 See Agreements between Attorney General of North Carolina and, SF, PSF, and Frontline Farmers (North Carolina Department of Justice, on file with Ryke Longest, 2000 & 2002). Also available at www.cals.ncsu.edu/waste_mgt/2 See Development of Environmentally Superior Technologies: One, Two, and Three Year Progress Reports, available at www.cals.ncsu.edu/waste_mgt/ (2001, 2002, and 2003). 3 See Proceedings – North Carolina Animal Waste Management Workshop, October 16-17, 2003. Edited by G.B. Havenstein, published by North Carolina State University College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, 149 pages.

8




Because of the importance of the technology determinations relative to the North Carolina swine industry and affected citizens, the process has been conducted as aggressively as possible and this report represents a phased approach that is intended to initiate implementation of EST as soon as possible after identification of EST as defined in the Agreements. This report focuses on 8 of the candidate EST that were targeted for this initial (Phase 1) technology determination. Performance data and processes utilized to identify candidate EST as meeting the environmental performance criteria, contingencies associated with the identified EST, and recommendations for on farm implementation are discussed as well.

9


2.0 Candidate Environmentally Superior Technology Descriptions Concise descriptions, schematics and figures for each of the candidate EST included in the Phase 1 Technology Determinations follow. Additional information related to the farm sites used for each of the technologies is provided in Table 1.

10


Ambient Temperature Anaerobic Digester and Greenhouse for Swine Waste Treatment and Bioresource Recovery - Barham Farm, Zebulon, NC – 4000 head Farrow to Wean

Barns Digester Biofilters Houses – pit recharge

Liquid Storage – irrigation

Figure 1. Process Flow Diagram for Barham farm.

Biofilter (2nd) - Greenhouses

11

Figure 2. Ambient Temperature Anaerobic Digester The digester receives waste from the barns at a rate ofapproximately 37,000 g/d. The digester has a surface area of 265ft x 265 ft and a fixed operating depth of 20 ft with a side slope of3:1. The volume of the digester is approximately 864,500 ft3. Thedigester has a three-foot clay liner at the bottom. A 40mil high-density polyethylene (HDPE) water impermeable cover wasinstalled to completely cover the digester. A water pump is usedto remove rain water from the top of the cover. Biogas producedin the digester is utilized for electricity and heat productionthrough an internal combustion engine, a 120 kW electricitygenerator, a 400,000 BTU boiler, and a 10,000 gallon water tank.

Figure 3. Nitrification Biofilters Effluent from the digester is stored in a storage pond (formeranaerobic lagoon before the anaerobic digester was installed)that has a total volume of approximately 1,850,000 ft3, a surfacearea of about 256,800 ft2 (1,070 ft x 240 ft), and a depth ofabout 8 ft. In order to control ammonia emission from thedigester effluent stored in the pond, four nitrification biofilterswere installed to convert ammonium in the liquid to nitrate.The nitrified effluent is then used to recharge the pits inside thepig houses.

Figure 4. Greenhouse for Tomato Production Two 28,000 ft2 greenhouses were constructed on the farm toutilize the nutrients in the stabilized swine wastewater. Thestabilized wastewater from the west storage is used forfertigation (fertilization and irrigation) for tomato production inthe greenhouses. There are approximately 7,200 tomato plantsgrown in 3,600 pots filled with perlite (an inert growing media)in each house.


“BEST” Biomass Energy Sustainable Technology – Corbett Farm #1, Rose Hill, NC - 3000 head Finisher

Barns Collection pit

Fan Feed Tank

Fan Separator

TFS Feed Tank

TFS

ST Tank

Solids

Figure 5. Process Flow Diagram for “BEST” – Corbett # 1.

Liquid Storage – Barn recharge/Irrigation

12

Figures 6 a & b. Corbett Farm Unit 1, screw-press separator and tangential flow settling system

Manure flushed from the barns flows to a collectionpit, then to an above-ground feed tank and then to ascrew press separator (FAN®) on a raised platform.The separator has a screen with .25 millimeteropenings. The liquid that flows through the screwpress separator screen flows to a second feed tank,then to two tangential flow gravity settling tanks sitedparallel to each other. Each tangential flow settlingsystem (TFS) consists of a 2.2-meter diameter tankwith a cone bottom followed by a 1.2-meter diametersludge thickening tank, also with a cone bottom.Tangential flow in the first tank causes solids toconcentrate in the center of the tank and settle to thebottom. This settled slurry is then pumped to thesecond tank for sludge thickening (ST). For about 10minutes every hour the settled slurry from the secondtangential flow settling tank is pumped back to thetank that feeds the screw press separator, where thesettled slurry is combined with the flushed manurethat is being pumped to the screw press separator.Separated liquid from the TFS and ST tanks is storedin the existing lagoon for flushing the barns and forirrigation. Approximately, 30,000 g/d of wastewateris processed.


“BEST” Biomass Energy Sustainable Technology – Corbett Farm #3 & 4, Rose Hill, NC - 4000 head Finisher (total both sites)

Barns Filtramat Feed Tank

Filtramat Screen & Screw press

TFS Feed Tank

TFS

ST Tank

Solids

Figure 7. Process Flow Diagram for “BEST” – Corbett # 3 & 4.

Primary Storage

Liquid Storage - Barn Recharge / Irrigation

Figures 8 a & b. Corbett Farm Units 3 and 4, Filtramat separator and Combusion Plant. Manure is flushed from the barns to a Filtramat™ feedtank and then to a Filtramat™ separator. The separatorconsists of sloping concave screens and a hydraulic screwpress. The screen has .5 millimeter openings. Separatedsolids migrate down the screen into a hopper. A wipermoves across the screen periodically to clean it. The solidsthat drop to the hopper are fed to a chamber to bedewatered by a hydraulic screw press. The liquid thatleaves the Filtramat flows to a tangential flow settlingsystem (TFS) identical to the system used at Corbett FarmUnit 1. Settled solids from the sludge thickening tank areperiodically returned to the screw press. Separated liquidfrom the TFS and ST tanks is stored into the existingprimary lagoon and then pumped to the existing secondarylagoon where it is used for both flushing the barns andirrigation. Approximately 36,000 g/d of wastewater wasprocessed. Combustion of solids Solids collected from both “BEST” systems along withturkey litter were trucked to a combustion facility in Coeurd' Alene, Idaho, during the evaluation period. The solidsand turkey litter were combusted at a test facility/pilotcombustion plant. The combustion and emissionscharacteristics of turkey litter, swine manure solids andvarious mixtures of the two were evaluated in anatmospheric bubbling fluidized bed system maintainingminimum bed temperature above 1,300° F. The ash thatremains after combustion was evaluated for its fertilizervalue.

13


Belt Manure Removal and Gasification System to Convert Dry Manure Thermally to a Combustible Gas Stream for Liquid Fuel Recovery – North Carolina State University, Grinnells Laboratory, Raleigh, NC – 80-100 Feeder (Research facility)

Pens Belt - solids

Gutter - liquid

Gasifier Ash

Figure 9. Process Flow Diagram of Belt Removal System.

Methane/gases Ethanol

This system was evaluated in Grinnells Laborcampus. The conveyor belt is placed at a 4o athe pigs are housed. The solid waste drops thrwaste (urine) drains to a gutter that runs paraThe solid waste remains on the belt and is convit may be collected for storage and further proce

14

Figure 10. Belt Removal System

A conveyor belt is used to separate the solid andliquid portions of the waste stream produced bypigs. The separated solids are then treated using agasification process.

Gasification is the process of burning a substancein a low-oxygen environment to convert complexorganic compounds to gases. When pig manure isgasified, gases such as methane, carbon monoxideand hydrogen are released. The gases can becollected and used to make fuel-grade ethanol. Inaddition to gases, gasification produces ash. Theash produced when pig manure is gasifiedcontains the minerals that were in the manure.

atory on the North Carolina State University ngle beneath the partially slatted floors where ough the floor to the belt below and the liquid llel to the belt which is collected separately. eyed to an area at the end of the pens, where ssing.


Belt System for Manure Removal – North Carolina State University Lake Wheeler Field Laboratories, Raleigh, NC – 15 head Finisher (Research facility)

Pens Belt - solids

Gutter - liquid

BSF Value-added product

Figure 11. Process Flow Diagram for Belt Removal System.

Project scope

Figure 12. Belt Removal System This process is designed to separateliquid and solid wastes as they aredeposited inside a swine productionfacility. The belt system is being evaluated inconjunction with another candidatetechnology, a system that uses blacksoldier fly (BSF) larvae to convert pigmanure solids into a value-added productthat has a high concentration of oil andprotein.

The system was evaluated at North Carolina State University's Lake Wheeler Road Field Laboratory, where a pilot-scale belt system was constructed.

The centerpiece of the system is a conveyor belt that is positioned below the pens where the pigs are housed. The flooring of the pens is slatted so that waste drops through the floor to the belt below. The belt has a convex shape to allow the liquid waste stream to flow off the belt into gutters positioned alongside the belt for separate collection. The solid waste remains on the belt and is carried to the end of the pens, where it may be conveyed out of the housing facility for storage or further processing. During the belt evaluation, the separated / collected solids were utilized to supply the manure solids for the black soldier fly project.

15


Ekokan Upflow Biofilter – Brown’s of Carolina #93, Blandenboro, NC – 4000 head Finisher

Barns

Figure 13. Process Flow Diagram for EKOKAN technology.

Solid Separator

EQ Tank Upflow Biofilters

Liquid Storage (Existing baffled lagoon)

Solids

Figure 14. Biofilter Tanks Liquid flows from the EQ tank by gravity andpasses through first-stage and second-stageaerated biofilters connected in series (two sets,or four biofilters in total). Plastic fixed mediawithin the biofilters provides surface area for abiofilm of bacteria to perform biologicaldegradation that reduces organics and odor andconverts ammonia to nitrate nitrogen.Wastewater flows upward through thebiofilters, and air is supplied at the bottom ofeach biofilter with blowers (two 60 hpblowers). The biofilter tanks are covered, andair and any excess foam from the aeratedtreatment are routed through PVC pipes to exitpoints over an anaerobic lagoon.

The Ekokan LLC waste treatment system consists of solids/liquid separation and biofiltration ofthe liquid with upflow aerated biological filters. Approximately 6 barns pits at 20,000 g/d ofwaste from the barns were delivered into the treatment system automatically in sequence.Wastewater from the barn pits is released into a solids separation unit. Coarse solids areseparated from the wastewater using an inclined screen / conveyor separator (TR Separator).After the solids/liquid separation, the liquid is pumped to a 40,000-gallon equalization (EQ)tank.

16


“ORBIT” High Solids Anaerobic Digester (HSAD) – Timber Ridge Farms, Clinton, NC – Centralized Site

Figure 16. HSAD.

Separated Solids from Farms HSAD Liquid / fertilizer

Solid Separation Solids for further processing

Figure 15. Process Flow Diagram of ORBIT(HSAD).

Project scope

Methane/biogas

17

The main component of this project is anenclosed thermophilic, or high-temperature, anaerobic digester which isused to convert the solids portion of thewaste stream from a swine operation intobiogas (methane and carbon dioxide). Thebiogas can then be used as an alternativeenergy source to generate electricity orheat. Waste from other waste streams,such as food waste, may be co-digestedwith swine waste solids. The residencetime of material in the digester isapproximately 15 to 21 days depending onloading rates (quantity and time) and wastestream components. Approximately 75percent of the organic carbon is convertedinto biogas. The balance of the organiccarbon and the bulk of all other nutrientsproduce an effluent sludge. The sludge andsolid fraction are then further processed tomake a value-added liquid fertilizer or soilamendment.


“ReCip” Solids Separation – Reciprocating Wetlands – Corbett Farms #2, Rose Hill, NC – 2000 head Finisher

Figure 18. Top view of reciprocating wetland cell.

Barns Solid Separator

ReCip Cells Liquid Storage – Barn flushing and irrigation

Solids (Exising lagoon)

Figure 17. Process Flow Diagram of Reciprocating Wetlands.

Project scope

This technology employs wetland cells or basins inwhich alternating anaerobic and aerobic conditionsare created to remove nitrogen from the wastestream. Approximately 20,000 g/d of wastewater isprocessed. The waste stream from the houses where the pigs arehoused flows first to a settling tank for solidsseparation. The remaining liquid then flows to thereciprocating wetland cells. The cells are earthenbasins with synthetic liners. Each cell is filled withaggregate, which acts as a surface on whichmicrobes reside. The liquid from the settling tank ispumped back and forth between the cells. As liquidis removed from a cell, aerobic conditions arecreated, which promotes nitrification (the conversionof ammonia in the waste stream to nitrate). As a cellfills with liquid, anaerobic conditions are created,which promotes denitrification (the conversion ofnitrate to harmless nitrogen gas, which enters theatmosphere). Liquid has a six-day residence time inthe cells. Liquid leaving the cells is recycled to thepig houses to be used to move waste from thehouses. Any excess liquid is land applied.

18


“Super Soils” Solids Separation/ Nitrification – Denitrification / Soluble Phosphorous Removal / Solids Processing System – Goshen Ridge Farm, Kenansville, NC – 4000 head Finisher

Barns

Primary Screen

Homogenization Tank

Polymer injection - Solid Separator

Denitrification Tank (D1) Nitrification Tank (N1) Denitrification Tank (D2) Settling Tank Oxidizing Tank

Liquid Storage – Barn flushing – irrigation

Phosphorous Removal – Fertilizer - irrigation

Figure 19. Process Flow Diagram of Super Soils technology.

19

Figures 20 a-c. Super Soils technology components.

There are two elements of this project, a liquid treatmentsystem and a solids processing facility, each are located attwo different sites. The liquid treatment system is locatedat Goshen Ridge Farms, a 4,360-head finishing farm nearWarsaw, North Carolina. The solid waste managementportion of this project is located at Timber Ridge Farmsnear Clinton, North Carolina.

Approximately 10,000 g/d of wastewater is processed.Liquid treatment begins with separation of the solid andliquid portions of the waste stream. Solids separation isaccomplished using polyacryalmide, a flocculating agent.The solids are transported to the Clinton site, where theyare composted and blended with other materials using aproprietary process to produce a growth media. Thisvalue-added product is then bagged for sale and use offthe farm.

The liquid portion of the waste stream flows betweentanks in a circulating loop undergoing denitrification as aresult of aerobic activity in one tank and nitrificationthrough the use of concentrated nitrifying bacteria in thesecond tank. Nitrogen is removed from the waste streamduring this stage of the process. The treated waste wateris stored for recharging the pits of the barns and a portionis further treated for soluble phosphorous removal.


3.0 Technology Determinations Process and Performance Standards The technology determination process for candidate EST involved a 15-step systematic process: 1) EST candidate selection through a request for proposals and competitive review, 2) selection of appropriate commercial farms or university research sites for the technology studies, 3) execution of farm owner agreements, 4) execution of technology design agreements, 5) development of technology design documents, 6) submittal, review and approval of design documents by the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR) for permitting purposes, 7) execution of technology construction agreements, 8) on-site construction, 9) execution of agreements for technology operation and post-evaluation decommission (if necessary), 10) construction closure approvals, 11) establishment of functional operation of technology (e.g. steady state waste treatment conditions), 12) procurement of environmental performance data and economic feasibility data by third party research teams, 13) analysis of data and results reporting to the Advisory Panel, Designee, and public, 14) input and review process by the advisory panels, and 15) EST technology determinations per terms and conditions of Agreements. The funded projects and their current environmental performance verification and economic feasibility status are shown in Table 2. As previously noted and referenced, detailed reports for these projects and the research process and data collected have been previously published. Each candidate technology is assessed for technical, operational, and economic feasibility. The feasibility parameters are discussed below. Technical Feasibility The Agreements specify that a successful EST must meet 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.” These performance standards were previously established by the North Carolina General Assembly4 and were used as the basis for technically performance standards in the Agreements. Developing operational criteria based on the terms “substantially eliminate” were challenging task for this initiative. To provide guidance and detail input on this subject, the Designee appointed an Engineering Subcommittee, made up of appointed panel members with 4 See General Assembly of North Carolina, Session 1997, Session Law 1998-188, House Bill 1480

20


engineering experience and environmental interests. Smithfield, PSF, and Frontline Farmers were also represented; Paul Sherman, who represents NCDENR on the panel, was appointed chair. The Subcommittee’s Recommendation Document is provided as Appendix D. Technical feasibility performance data considered involved the candidate waste treatment systems performance in terms of: 1) partitioning, conversion or removal of the waste stream solids and organic matter, nutrients (primarily nitrogen and phosphorus), and metals (copper and zinc); and 2) reducing emissions of odor, pathogens, and emissions of ammonia. The detail methods and results for the targeted projects, relevant to the environmental performance data, are provided in the project investigator final reports (Appendix A). Data compiled from those reports relative to the technical feasibility determinations are summarized in Tables 3-6. This data and the referenced Engineering Subcommittee Document (see Appendix D) provided the primary basis for decisions by the Designee regarding technical feasibility of the candidate EST. It is noted that the Designee concurs with most recommendations put forward by the subcommittee and described in the recommendation document. For clarity in reference to that document and the technology determinations described in this report, the following represents the Designee’s current position on the recommendations by performance standard: Eliminate the discharge of animal waste to surface waters and groundwater through direct discharge, seepage, or runoff. Designee concurs with recommendations as described. Substantially eliminate atmospheric emissions of ammonia. Designee considers an achievable goal as approximately 80% reduction of ammonia emissions from waste storage/treatment and land application areas. The Designee recognizes that barn emissions of ammonia are also important. Goals of a treatment system must also target reduction of ammonia from the barns. 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. Designee concurs with recommendations described in the main text of the Recommendation Document with the following modification – odor intensity levels, measured using an index scale from 0-8, should not exceed the established metric of 2 (see Table 4 and Appendix A.10 for description) at a property line on which the swine farm is located. It is recognized by the Designee that this (property line criteria) may exclude some farms from potential EST conversion due to the close proximity of swine buildings and/or waste treatment system components to existing property lines. However, for determinations related to the Agreements, the Designee’s interpretation of the language adopted by the General Assembly and incorporated into the Agreements regarding “boundaries of the parcel or tract of land on which the swine farm is located” is literal.

21


Substantially eliminate the release of disease-transmitting vectors and airborne pathogens. Designee concurs with recommendation regarding goal to produce no detectable increase in pathogen vectors, however the 99% reduction in detectable airborne pathogens goal is rejected based on Advisory Panel input by professionals with expertise in the discipline of Public Health regarding the practicality and achievability of this goal. Approximately a criterion of 4 log reductions of pathogens (microorganisms documented to be of human health concern) in the treated liquid and solid waste stream, as compared to concentrations in the raw manure is considered sufficient to meet the standard. All components of the waste management system (technology treatment, fate of farm generated solids, method and location of land application of liquid and/or solids, etc.) are considered factors for pathogen reductions. Substantially eliminate nutrient and heavy metal contamination of soil and groundwater. Designee concurs with recommendation section regarding the ability of a farm to meet current NC NRCS Nutrient Management Standard 590 including added considerations of current realistic yield expectations, individual plant available nitrogen calculations, PLAT evaluation to determine phosphorus loss and application rates, and metal soil index threshold warnings. Where on-farm resources (i.e. available land) are not sufficient to meet these described standards, reductions in excess nutrients may be met by transporting the nutrients off the farm, and/or animal diet modification. Operational Feasibility Performance standards or factors for determining operational feasibility are not enumerated in the Agreements. For consideration of operational feasibility the Designee requested inputs from the project investigators involved with the data collection and analysis of the candidate waste treatment systems performance in terms of partitioning, conversion or removal of the waste steam solids and organic matter, nutrients and metals. These investigators were more closely involved with the day-to-day operations of the individual technology candidates. Input from the technology suppliers was also requested and considered. Parameters such as: operator hours required per week; system inspection needs; maintenance of “moving parts”; required computer skills; trouble shooting pumps, equipment, and electrical controls, etc. were considered. In addition, NCDENR was consulted regarding operator certification and license requirements. Operational feasibility information for the Phase 1 targeted technologies is provided in Table 7. It is recognized that operational feasibility considerations will impact both the technical and economic feasibility parameters.

22


Economic Feasibility The Agreements specify, “In determining whether it is economically feasible to construct and operate a particular alternative technology for a category of farms, the Designee will consider all relevant information including but not limited to the following factors:

1) the projected 10-year annualized cost (including capital, operational 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, operational 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 cost 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.”

Extensive data and reports have been compiled and submitted to the Designee by the project investigators conducting this work – an overview of that work, prepared by the Designee from the draft reports submitted by the investigators, is provided in Appendix B. While the economic feasibility analysis is not yet finalized for the targeted Phase 1 candidate technologies, the draft reports submitted to date indicate:

1) the projected additional costs of retrofitting existing lagoon sprayfield farms with candidate Phase 1 EST ranges between approximately $60 to $400 per unit cost ($ per 1,000 lbs. steady state live weight per year),

2) impacts on company owned farms that adopt the candidate Environmentally Superior Technology may be significant with declines in production in all farm type/size categories,

3) various sources of financial support, including cost share programs, may be available in the future with the most promising opportunities for technologies that generate energy, however, there is no single “silver bullet” currently available.

In addition to the Agreement mandated considerations enumerated above, the Designee expanded the scope of the economic feasibility to also include the following factors:

1) identify and quantify the pathways by which the adoption of new waste management technologies changes pollutant emissions to air and water and affects environmental quality; and,

23


2) estimate the monetized benefits to North Carolina households of the changes in environmental quality achieved by implementing alternative waste management technologies.

RTI International (RTI) primarily conducted this scope of work; the final report is provided as Appendix C. The report provides benefits analysis information that can be useful to the Designee for distinguishing among technologies that meet both the technical environmental performance and economic costs standards described herein. As noted by RTI in the report, the information was developed using the best available methods and data, however, the estimates should not be interpreted as complete and precise monetized estimates of the total benefits of reducing swine-related environmental residuals in the state of North Carolina (see Section 1.2.2, pages 1-11 and 1-12 of the RTI report, Appendix C). All of the economic feasibility criteria described above is essential for final unconditional determination of an EST. Over the next year, significant work will be ongoing to analyze technologies identified in this report that meet the technical feasibility requirements, as well as the remaining technology candidates, to determine if they also meet the economic criteria.

24


4.0 Technology Permittability and Category or Categories of Farms Permittability The Agreements specify that any technology or combination of technologies that meet the EST standards must be “permittable by the appropriate governmental authority”. In North Carolina the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR) is the lead stewardship agency for the preservation and protection of North Carolina's natural resources and three of its Divisions are specifically involved with the permitting and regulatory aspects of the EST projects: the Division of Water Quality; the Division of Air Quality; and, the Division of Waste Management. Collectively, these agencies (primarily the Division of Water Quality) have been involved with all permits to construct and operate the experimental candidate EST. NCDENR is represented by 2 members of the Advisory Panel, both of which served on the Engineering Subcommittee (one as chair) that issued a recommendation document regarding the technical performance standards as they apply to candidate EST (see Appendix D). Recommendations for on-farm implementation of EST (conditional or non-conditional) by the Designee will be with input and concurrence by NCDENR. It is also anticipated that NCDENR will make a determination regarding how compliance will be demonstrated for each technology system that meets the technical performance criteria. Category or Categories of Farms5

The Agreements reference, in several sections, EST for identified “category or categories of farms.” Further, the Agreements specify “the 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 the Designee deems appropriate.” For the objectives related to the EST determinations, categories of farms are based on the types of North Carolina swine farms and the distribution of weight across these farms. This is based on input and study by the investigators conducting the economic feasibility analysis needed to partition the representative swine farms for the economic modeling of farm sizes to compute cost estimates for all candidate EST technologies. The category distribution used, and as described by the economic team investigators is summarized as follows. The production process for market hogs is comprised of three primary stages — farrow-to-wean, wean-to-feeder, and feeder-to-finish. Farrow-to-wean farms house sows during their breeding, gestation, farrowing and nursing stages. Sows nurse newborn pigs until weaning which typically occurs 18 to 23 days after a litter of pigs is born. The pigs may weigh 10-12 pounds at weaning. The weaned pigs are moved to a nursery facility to begin the second stage of the production process. Pigs will remain in the nursery (also called wean-to-feeder stage) for 7-10 weeks enabling them to reach a weight of 45-55 pounds. Finally, the pigs are moved to another facility to enter the feeder-to-finish stage. In this stage, pigs will add approximately 200 pounds of bodyweight over a period of 16 weeks. At a live weight of approximately 260 pounds and an age of about six months, the pigs will be marketed for 5 Information in this section compiled, in part, from reports submitted by the project investigators conducting the economic feasibility determinations.

25

http://h2o.ehnr.state.nc.us/

http://www.enr.state.nc.us/AQ/




slaughter. Thus, the three primary stages of the hog production process can be combined to form five types of hog farming operations: 1) farrow-to-wean, 2) farrow-to-feeder, 3) farrow-to-finish, 4) wean-to-feeder, and 5) feeder-to-finish. The majority of North Carolina’s hog farms concentrate on one stage of production, but some include two (farrow-to-feeder) or three (farrow-to-finish) stages. Farms with inventories of greater than 250 hogs are required to obtain a permit through the NCDENR. Data recorded in the permit database include the permitted capacity of the farm in number of head of each type of pig (breeding animals, nursery pigs, and feeder to finish pigs) and the associated steady state live weight (SSLW). By partitioning the farm size into categories of 0-500 SSLW, 500-1000 SSLW, 1000-1500 SSLW, 1500-2000 SSLW, and >2000 SSLW, and using the 5 types of hog farming operations described above, 25 possible combinations of farm size and type of operation result. These 25 possible combinations include all permitted hog farms in the state and are used as the basis for “category or categories of farms” as applicable to the Agreements. The actual total combinations may be less for the company (Smithfield and PSF) owned farms as these companies may not own a farm in every possible size and type category in North Carolina. It is also possible that site-specific conditions or considerations may require that particular farms be further subcategorized based on additional economic analysis and the application of the economic criteria to individual farm circumstances.

26


5.0 Phase 1 Environmentally Superior Technology Determinations and Contingencies Technology Determinations Based on Designee responsibilities as described in the Agreements, review of project investigators reported performance data, and Advisory Panel inputs, the following technology determinations are made at this time: 1) the solids separation / nitrification–denitrification / soluble phosphorus removal system (“Super Soils” technology) and 2) the high solids anaerobic digester (“ORBIT” technology). These technologies are determined to meet the EST technical feasibility performance criteria described in Section 3.0 of this report. For clarity, it is noted that these determinations are, at present, specific to the liquid waste stream treatment components of the Super Soils system and the solids waste treatment components of the ORBIT system. Several of the 8 candidate technologies evaluated as part of the Phase 1 determinations meet many of the technical feasibility performance criteria. For those technologies it is possible that upon making technology modifications and/or combining treatment unit processes between some of the candidate EST these systems will also meet all of the mandated technical feasibility performance standards. As such, these technologies continue to be candidate EST pending further data review and/or technology modifications by the technology providers. Further system modifications or unit combinations to meet all of the technical standards will be at the discretion of the technology providers. The Designee will consider a revised technology determination for these candidates based on available objective data, and best professional judgment, after consultation with the Advisory Panel. Contingencies Contingencies for conditional EST determinations refer to all feasibility criteria as defined in the Agreements — technical, operational, and economic. For the “Super Soils” technology, the technology supplier has proposed a redesigned “second generation” system. The proposed new system design is based on experiences gained during the current performance verification process and is intended to significantly lower the capital, maintenance and operating costs of the system. While the economic feasibility analysis is yet to be completed for all Phase 1 technologies, it will be necessary for the Super Soils system to reduce its currently reported costs and ultimately meet all of the economic feasibility criteria described in Section 3.0 in order for it to be an unconditional EST. The redesigned system’s proposed lower costs must be objectively verified to the fullest extent possible, the system must also be permittable and meet the technical feasibility standards consistent with the performance of the system previously evaluated. For the “ORBIT” technology, as with the “Super Soils” technology, the economic feasibility determinations as described in Section 3.0, must be finalized and objectively verified to the fullest extent possible. The technology must also be verified to operate at a technical performance level equal to that observed during the evaluation period while processing non-variable loading amounts of swine solids for a reasonable steady state time period.

27


Contingency status for these and any additional technologies so characterized will be based on available objective data, and best professional judgment, after consultation with the Advisory Panel.

28


6.0 Next Steps and Environmentally Superior Technologies Implementation Schedule The information and data provided herein and summarized in Tables 3-6 indicate that two of the technologies considered in the Phase 1 determinations have been shown to be capable of meeting the Agreements technical performance standards that define an Environmentally Superior Technology. The data also indicate that, with technical modifications and/or combination of some of the technology unit processes, additional technologies considered in the Phase 1 determinations may meet the technical performance criteria. This represents a significant milestone and opportunity to proceed forward in this process. This opportunity is consistent with the Agreement language: “hog production and a clean and safe environment are important to the farming community and economy of North Carolina.” It is recognized by the Designee that “Environmentally Superior Technologies,” per the Agreements, must also be economically feasible and that aspect of the studies is yet to be completed. However, in the spirit of the goals of this initiative and its importance to the state’s environment, economy, and impacted citizens the following steps are proposed:

1. Identify company owned farm(s) for installment and evaluation of the proposed revised cost “Super Soils” technology.

2. Establish a framework such that the “ORBIT” technology can operate and process solids from the “Super Soils” or other candidate technologies generating solids which require further processing of these materials to meet the technical performance criteria.

3. Establish specific criteria to be used in making economic feasibility determinations, pursuant to the contingencies noted in Section 5.0 of this report, and also for application to the remaining candidate technologies.

4. Conclude the technical performance and economic feasibility analysis for these and all remaining candidate technologies as soon as possible and subsequently identify reasonable modifications, combinations, if required and if possible, for the technologies to be unconditionally “Environmentally Superior”.

5. Identify potential incentives, public policy, and markets related to the sale of byproducts (including energy) generated by the 2 technologies described above as well as the candidate technologies still under evaluation pursuant to the Agreements. Identify legal and institutional obstacles that must be addressed to maximize the revenue potential of these byproducts.

6. Begin, and if possible complete, development of NCDENR permit conditions as well as proposed National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit conditions (if required) for the technologies described above and for any additional technology under consideration that may meet the Environmentally Superior Technology criteria in the Agreements.

7. Establish a plan for implementation that describes which farms must adopt Environmentally Superior Technology and over what time profile. The plan should include a mechanism to monitor both environmental and economic performance, a schedule for implementation, and a discussion of how the timing of implementation affects the economic feasibility criteria discussed in Section 3.0 of this report.

29


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Acknowledgement and sincere appreciation is expressed to the following: Advisory Panel members; engineering subcommittee members (chairperson Paul Sherman in particular); all project principal investigators, co-investigators, and collaborators; farm property owners and operators (Julian Barham, Phil Moore, and Chuck Stokes in particular); technology suppliers; construction and permit on site project technical managers (Steve Cavanaugh in particular); Animal and Poultry Waste Management staff (Lynn Worley-Davis and Brenda Boykin in particular); North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources; North Carolina Department of Justice (Ryke Longest in particular); North Carolina State University administration (Marye Anne Fox, James Oblinger and Johnny Wynne in particular); and, finally the companies that entered into the Agreements (Smithfield, PSF, and Frontline Farmers). Without the resources, inputs, and support of these individuals, agencies, and organizations, the progress and accomplishments noted in this report would not have been possible. C.M. Williams, Agreements Designee July 26, 2004

30


Table 1. Conventional farm sites and Environmentally Superior Technology experimental site information (Phase 1 Technology Determinations).6

Technology Candidate Farm type and approximate animal inventory

Houses ventilation type

Houses waste discharge type and approximate waste stream flow

Conventional Technology7 (Stokes) Finishing 5,000 head 4 houses

Natural Flush 14,000 gal/d

Conventional Technology (Moore Bros.) Finishing 7,000 head 8 houses

Tunnel Pit recharge 70,000 gal/d

Ambient Temperature Anaerobic Digester and Greenhouse for Swine Waste Treatment and Bioresource Recovery at “Barham Farm”

Farrow-to-wean 4,000 sows 6 houses

Tunnel Pit recharge 37,000 gal/d

“Ekokan” Biofiltration Technology Finishing 4,000 head 5 houses

Tunnel Pit recharge 6 pits at 20,000 gal/pit/d

“ReCip” Solids Separation – Reciprocating Wetland

Finishing 2,000 head 2 houses

Natural Flush 20,000 gal/d

“BEST”8 (solids / liquids separation / gasification of solids) Biomass Energy Sustainable Technology

Finishing Site 1 (Corbett 1) 3,000 head 5 houses Site 2 (Corbett 3&4) 4,000 head 4 houses

Natural (both sites)

Flush (both sites) Site 1 – 30,000 gal/d Site 2 – 36,000 gal/d

BELT (Grinnells lab, NCSU campus – research unit)

Feeder (25 to 55 kg) 80-100 head each in 5 separate experiments Single room

Mechanical Belt .6 lbs dry matter (49%) solids/pig/d + .3 gal urine/pig/d

BELT (LWRFL9site – research unit) Finishing 15 head 4 separate experiments Single room

Mechanical Belt 2 lbs dry matter (33%) solids/pig/d + 1 gal pig urine/d

“ORBIT” High Solids Anaerobic Digester

Solids processing facility, no animals on site

Not applicable Not applicable

“Super Soils” Solids Separation / Nitrification-Denitrification / Soluble Phosphorus Removal / Solids Processing System

Finishing 4,000 head 6 houses

Natural, with fan-ventilated pits

Pit recharge 10,000 gal/d

6 Approximate values derived primarily from Project Investigator Final Reports. Full reports contain more precise and detailed information (see Appendix A). 7 Conventional Technology = Permitted lagoon spray-field waste treatment system 8 Project was comprised of two solids/liquid separation systems; a screw-press separator (FAN® Separator) followed by tangential flow gravity-settling tanks (TFS System) located on Farm Site 1; and a screen and hydraulic press separator (Filtramat™) followed by the TFS System located on Farm Site 2. 9 LWRFL = NCSU Lake Wheeler Road Field Laboratory.

31


Table 2. Environmentally Superior Technology project status (July 2004)10. Technology Candidate Environmental Performance

Data Procurement Economic Feasibility Determination


Complete Complete

“Ekokan” Biofiltration Technology

Complete Complete


Complete Complete

“Super Soils” Solids Separation / Nitrification-Denitrification / Soluble Phosphorus Removal System

Complete Complete

Belt System for Manure Removal / Gasification of Solids

Complete (belt component) Complete

Belt System for Manure Removal / Insect Biomass from Solids

Complete (belt component) Complete


Complete Complete

“BEST” Biomass Energy Sustainable Technology

Complete Complete

Solids separation / constructed wetlands system

In progress In progress

“ISSUES” Permeable cover / aerobic blanket / mesophilic digester / microturbine / water reuse system


“ANT” Sequencing batch reactor system


“AgriClean” Mesophilic digester and “AgriJet” flush system


“GulfTex” Dewatering drying system

Scheduled for Fall 2004 Scheduled for completion Summer 2005

10 Environmental performance data and economic feasibility determinations where listed “complete” represent final and / or draft final report submissions by the project investigators at this time (July 2004). “In progress” status represents continued data measurements and procurements for those projects (scheduled to be completed in 2005).

32


Table 3. Environmentally Superior Technology candidate projects demonstrated performance for solids, organic matter and nutrients (Phase 1 Technology Determinations). Values shown are percent reductions.11

Technology TAN12 TKN13 Solids14 COD15 BOD16 TP17 Cu Zn “Barham Farm” 18 29

trickling biofilters19

28 76 total 88 volatile

93

NR20 81 89 87

“EKOKAN”21 90-98 1-8722 20-50 suspended

20-40 40-70 2923 19-2924 16-3225

“RECIP”26 88 NR 48 total 94 suspended

83 NR 49 75 85

“BEST”27 -8 to -1 -4 to 7 -2 to 31 total -2 to 47 volatile 0 to 56 suspended

-6 to 42 -2 to 48 -5 to 57 -10 to 42 -15 to 50

“ORBIT”28 72 56 29 total NR NR 26 46 32 “SUPER SOILS”29

99 98 98 suspended 99 volatile

97 100 95 99 99

11 Values derived primarily from Project Investigator Final Reports (see Appendix A). 12 TAN = Total Ammonia Nitrogen 13 TKN = Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen 14 Solids = Type reported, e.g. suspended, total, volatile noted within each table cell 15 COD = Chemical Oxygen Demand 16 BOD = Biochemical Oxygen Demand (5-d) 17 TP = Total Phosphorus 18 Values reflect reductions from house effluent (pre digester) through digester unless otherwise noted. 19 Value reflects reduction from East storage pond area (post digester) through biofilter and also represents annual average. Summer season was reported to be approximately 90%. 20 NR = not reported 21 Values reflect reductions from EQ tank (post solids separation) through biofilter treatment. 22 Range of values measured between 2/25/03 – 6/27/03. See page 31 of Project Investigator Final Report in Appendix A.6. 23 Range of mass balance values measured for the A and B Series biofilter series. See page 25 of Project Investigator Final Report in Appendix A.6. 24 Range of mass balance values measured for the A and B Series biofilter series. See page 25 of Project Investigator Final Report in Appendix A.6. 25 Range of mass balance values measured for the A and B Series biofilter series. See page 25 of Project Investigator Final Report in Appendix A.6. 26 Values reflect reduction from Cell 1 influent (post solids separation) through Cell 2. 27 Values reflect reductions from FAN® or Filtramat™ influents (pre-separation) through TFS effluents. Note: project was comprised of two solids/liquid separation systems; a screw-press separator (FAN® Separator) followed by tangential flow gravity-settling tanks (TFS System) located on Farm Site 1; and a screen and hydraulic press separator (Filtramat™) followed by the TFS System located on Farm Site 2. The separated solids for each of the 2 systems (FAN and Filtramat) averaged approximately 30% dry matter. For explanation of the reported negative nutrient recovery values related to the total systems (FAN or Filtramat combined with the TFS System) see page 10 of the Project Investigator Final Report in Appendix A.2. 28 Values reflect reductions from digester feedstock and post digestion. 29 Values reflect reduction from house effluent (pre solids separation) through P removal unit.

33


Table 4. Environmentally Superior Technology candidate projects demonstrated performance for odor reduction (Phase 1 Technology Determinations). Values shown are approximate average odor intensity ratings at 200 and 400 meters from the odor source during the day and night where 0=none at all; 1=very weak, 2=weak; 3=moderately weak; 4=moderate; 5=moderately strong; 6=strong; 7=very strong; and 8=maximal. The first value represents whole farm odor emissions / the second value represents partitioned emissions from the technology treatment components targeted in the experiment.30

Technology Day values 200m

Night values 200m

Day values 400m

Night values 400m

Conventional Technology (Stokes) 1.0 / NA31 4.0 / NA 0 / NA 3.1 / NA Conventional Technology (Moore Bros.) 1.3 / NA 2.2 / NA 0 / NA 1.4 / NA Ambient Temperature Anaerobic Digester and Greenhouse for Swine Waste Treatment and Bioresource Recovery at “Barham Farm”

1.2 / 0.2 2.2 / 0 .04 / 0 1.4 / 0

“Ekokan” Biofiltration Technology 2.0 / 1.6 3.0 / 2.7 0.8 / 0.4 2.1 / 1.8 “ReCip” Solids Separation – Reciprocating Wetland 0.1 / 0 2.8 / 0 0 / 0 2.0 / 0 “BEST” (solids / liquids separation) Biomass Energy Sustainable Technology Site 1 (FAN® + TFS)

0.9 / 0.6 1.9 / 1.5 .05 / 0 1.0 / 0.7

“BEST” (solids / liquids separation) Biomass Energy Sustainable Technology Site 2 (Filtramat™ + TFS)

0.5 / 0.3 1.3 / 1.0 0 / 0 0.6 / 0.3

BELT (Grinnells lab, NCSU campus) 0 0 0 0 BELT (LWRFL site) 0 0 0 0 “ORBIT” High Solids Anaerobic Digester 0 0 0 0 “Super Soils” Solids Separation / Nitrification-Denitrification / Soluble Phosphorus Removal System

1.1 / 0 2.1 / 0 0.1 / 0 1.3 / 0

30 Values derived from Project Investigator data report (see Appendix A.10). 31 NA = not applicable.

34


Table 5. Environmentally Superior Technology candidate projects demonstrated performance for reductions in pathogenic microorganisms (Phase 1 Technology Determinations). Values shown are approximate Log10 reductions in liquid or solid waste (based on waste stream focus of technology).32

Technology Fecal Coliforms

E. coli

Enterococci Cl. perfringens

Coliphage Salmonella

Conventional Technology (Stokes)

1.7 1.8 1.6 0.8 1.5 1.9

Conventional Technology (Moore Bros.)

1.4 1.3 1.0 0.6 1.2 0.4


4.1 5.2 4.9 2.8 3.7 4.8


1.5 1.3 1.2 0.7 1.8 1.8


1.6 1.7 0.9 0.7 0.8 1.8

BELT (Grinnells lab, NCSU campus)

0.0 0.0 +2.2* 0.2 ND 1.0

BELT (LWRFLsite) +0.6 +0.4 0.4 +0.6 +0.5 +0.4 “BEST” (solids / liquids separation) Biomass Energy Sustainable Technology Site 1 (FAN® + TFS)

0.2 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.5 0.1

“BEST” (solids / liquids separation) Biomass Energy Sustainable Technology Site 2 (Filtramat™ + TFS)

0.4 0.2 0.8 +0.4 0.1 2.0


4.4 4.3 3.2 1.0 1.8 2.4


4.4 4.2 4.0 1.4 3.0 3.4

ND not done due to failed assay * Positive reductions signify an increase in final microbe concentrations relative to initial microbe concentrations

32 Values derived from Project Investigator Final Report (see Appendix A.11).

35


Table 6. Environmentally Superior Technology performance for ammonia reduction (Phase 1 Technology Determinations). Values shown are % reductions as compared to ammonia emissions from comparable conventional technology sites (positive values indicate reductions in emissions, negative values indicate enhancement of emissions).33 (Table derived from project investigators report, see Appendix A.12).

Technology candidate

% Reduction in Emissions from Water

Holding Structures34

% Reduction in Barn Emissions 35

Total % Emission Reduction

at Technology site35,36 --- Season ---

Warm Cool Warm Cool Warm CoolAmbient Temperature Anaerobic Digester and Greenhouse for Swine Waste Treatment and Bioresource Recovery at “Barham Farm”

-66.4 58.8 13.8 -21.5 -11.9 2.5

“ReCip” Solids Separation – Reciprocating Wetland37

18.2 -26.4 -40.0 62.0 0.0 20.9

BELT (Grinnells lab, NCSU campus – research unit)38

- - -59.8 55.3 -59.8 55.3


42.7 71.7 11.4 -2.9 23.5 43.3

“BEST” (Corbett #1): Solids separation - tangential flow separator combined with a fan separation system

71.1 13.6 73.0 97.0 71.8 66.0

33Conventional technology sites included a primary anaerobic lagoon and either tunnel (Moore Brothers) or naturally (Stokes) ventilated houses. 35 Percent reductions in water holding structures are based against average lagoon ammonia emissions measured at both conventional farm sites for the respective season. Percent reductions in barn emissions are based against the conventional technology using the corresponding housing ventilation technique. Values derived for natural ventilated houses (ReCip, BEST, Super Soils sites) should be interpreted with caution due to environmental variability associated with measuring emissions from non-mechanically ventilated buildings. 35 Percent emission reduction figures are calculated using a precise algorithm that is documented in the respective reports for each technology (see Appendix A.11). The summary numbers provided in this table should not be averaged or combined in any fashion across components of the technologies or across season. 36 Unless otherwise noted, % reduction in emissions from water holding structures means emissions from all measured structures at a technology were combined together for a single season to arrive at the single % reduction figure. 37 A third evaluation was conducted in December 2003 – January 2004 to assess potential ammonia emissions from the surface of the RECIP treatment cells. Essentially zero emissions were detected compared to the daily loading of nitrogen to the cells during the evaluation period. The results from this third evaluation period are NOT included in the % reductions listed in the table 38 This technology had no accompanying water holding structure.

36


Technology % Reduction in Emissions from Water

Holding Structures

% Reduction in Barn Emissions

Total % Emission

Reduction at Technology site

Continued. --- Season --- Warm Cool Warm Cool Warm Cool“BEST” (Corbett #3/4): Solids separation - tangential flow separator combined with a screen and screw press system

39.6 7.4 -184.0 22.0 -29.2 17.0


94.7 99.0 -111.0 98.0 -1.9 98.5

BELT – NCSU LWRFL research unit39

- - -88.7 21.9 -88.7 21.9

“ORBIT” High Solids aerobic Digester 40

- - - - - -

39 This technology had no accompanying water holding structure. 40 This technology had no accompanying water holding structures, nor animal barns. Due to the configuration and location of the technology, it was only possible to make a qualitative evaluation of ammonia emissions. It was concluded that the ORBIT technology was not a constant source of ammonia emissions.

37


Table 7. Environmentally Superior Technology candidate project operational feasibility information. Convention farm information is included for comparisons. Estimates and inputs compiled from the project principal investigators, farm owners and operators, and technology suppliers. Input regarding certification and license requirements also provided by NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources. Phase 1 Technology Determinations. Technology Operator hours/week Operator skills Operator

certification / license requirements

Conventional (Stokes and Moore Bros.) sites

10 Record keeping, irrigation equipment operation and maintenance, tractor operation and maintenance. All aspects of planting, harvesting crops receiving lagoon effluent.

Licensed “Operator in Charge” per NCDENR requirements.

“BARHAM” 2.5 hours/week (for anaerobic digester, engine, generator , and nitrification biofilters only)

Trouble-shooting pumps, blower, and piping. TBD41

“EKOKAN” 20 Trouble-shooting pumps, equipment, electrical controls and computer controls. Knowledge of system operation and principles of nitrificaton treatment in order to make changes in operation if needed.

TBD

“RECIP” 0.75 (just ReCip Cells w/o solid separation)

Trouble-shoot pumps and electrical controls TBD

“BEST” Site 1 (FAN® + TFS)

14 Trouble-shooting pumps, equipment and electrical controls

TBD

“BEST” Site 2 (Filtramat™ + TFS)

16 Trouble-shooting pumps, equipment and electrical controls

TBD

BELT (Grinnells lab)

≤ 1.8 h/wk42 Trouble shoot belt drives, timers, and scrapers.

TBD

BELT (LWR site) 1.0 (just belt system to remove solids and liquid from barn)

Trouble-shoot mechanical systems (motors and drive unit)

TBD

“ORBIT” 40 Mixes feedstocks, feeds digesters, performs lab tests, keeps records, operates forklift, maintains equipment, repairs equipment

TBD

“SUPER SOILS” 20 Simple trouble-shooting, identification and reporting of problems, automation controls

TBD

41 TBD = To be determined. Information provided by NCDENR indicated that currently the Water Pollution Control System Operators Certification Commission (WPCSOCC) is taking no action on classifying any of these systems until final determinations have been made. After determinations are made, it has been discussed that specific classifications will be made for each type of system using training materials developed by the technology providers and approved by the Division. The classifications will be specific to the technology and the certified operator must follow the training developed for the specific technology. All technology providers are required by their permit to develop and submit a comprehensive operator training program for approval if the system is to remain operational. The WPCSOCC rules allow for this type of classification based on treatment processes that are sufficiently different from the conventional treatment process (15A NCAC 08F .0301). 42 Based on a single barn housing 1200 Grower/Finisher hogs. Operator time is calculated as ~10 minutes per day to check on belt performance and to cover an occasional maintenance issues.

38

development of environmentally superior technologies

Documents