DOCSLIB.ORG

Chapter 5 Industry Subcategorization for Effluent Limitations Guidelines

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Chapter 5 Industry Subcategorization for Effluent Limitations Guidelines CHAPTER 5 INDUSTRY SUBCATEGORIZATION FOR EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS GUIDELINES AND STANDARDS 5.0 INTRODUCTION The Clean Water Act requires EPA to consider a number of different factors when developing Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards (ELGs) for a particular industry category. These factors include the cost of achieving the effluent reduction, the age of the equipment and facilities, the processes employed, engineering aspects of the control technology, potential process changes, nonwater quality environmental impacts (including energy requirements), and factors the Administrator deems appropriate. One way EPA takes these factors into account is by breaking down categories of industries into separate classes of similar characteristics. The division of a point source category into groups called “subcategories” provides a mechanism for addressing variations among products, raw materials, processes, and other parameters that result in distinctly different effluent characteristics. Regulation of a category by subcategory ensures that each subcategory has a uniform set of effluent limitations that take into account technology achievability and economic impacts unique to that subcategory. The factors that EPA considered in the subcategorization of the CAFO point source category include: • Animal production processes • Waste management and handling practices • Wastes and wastewater characteristics • Waste use practices • Age of equipment and facilities • Facility size • Facility location EPA evaluated these factors and determined that subcategorization of this point source category is necessary. Based on these evaluations, the CAFO point source category has been divided into four subcategories for the purpose of issuing effluent limitations. These four subcategories are: • Subcategory A (Subpart A): Horses and sheep 5-1 • Subcategory B (Subpart B): Ducks • Subcategory C (Subpart C): Dairy and beef cattle other than veal calves • Subcategory D (Subpart D): Swine, poultry, and veal calves Section 5.1 briefly discusses the background of the subcategorization of the CAFO point source category including the 1974 Feedlots ELG. Section 5.2 discusses the subcategorization basis of the CAFO industry. 5.1 Background Under the 1974 rulemaking, EPA divided the point source category into two subcategories: (1) Subpart A - all subcategories except ducks, and (2) Subpart B - ducks on dry lots and wet lots. Subcategories addressed under Subpart A include • Beef cattle, open lot • Beef cattle, housed lot • Dairy cattle, stall barn with milk room • Dairy cattle, free stall barn with milking center • Dairy cattle, cowyard with milking center • Swine, open dirt or pasture lots • Swine, housed with slotted floor • Swine, open or housed with solid concrete floor • Chickens, broilers housed • Chickens, layers (egg production) housed • Chickens, layer breeding and replacement stock housed • Turkeys, open lot • Turkeys, housed lot • Sheep, open lot • Sheep, housed lot • Horses, stables This subcategorization was developed primarily on the basis of animal type and production processes employed. Secondary criteria were product produced, prevalence of the production process employed, and characteristics of waste produced. 5-2 On January 21, 2001 (66 FR 2960), EPA published a proposal to revise and update the ELG for feedlots (beef, dairy, swine, and poultry operations) that included two new subcategories: • Subpart C: Dairy and beef cattle, other than veal calves, including heifer operations. • Subpart D: Swine, poultry, and veal calves. This subcategorization scheme explicitly addressed immature cattle and swine weighing less than 55 pounds, which were not explicitly included in the previous subcategorization scheme, and established new subcategories for swine, poultry, and cattle operations (separate from horses and sheep). The proposal did not affect Subpart B, and retained Subpart A for horses and sheep. 5.2 Subcategorization Basis for the Final Rule The CAFO industry has changed operational practices considerably in the past few decades since promulgation of the 1974 ELG. During the development of this revised ELG, EPA determined that the basis for subcategorization needed to reflect current industry trends. In developing the final CAFO rule, EPA used information from USDA, industry, EPA site visits, data from EPA enforcement and inspection efforts, and public comments to evaluate each of the statutory factors listed above in Section 5.0 as they affect the current industry. EPA also considered maintaining the basis of subcategorization used in the 1974 ELG and refining the performance expectations for these facilities. Based on these analyses, EPA retained the subcategorization scheme proposed on January 21, 2001. The subcategories are • Subpart A: Horses and sheep. • Subpart B: Ducks. • Subpart C: Dairy and beef cattle, other than veal calves, including heifer operations. • Subpart D: Swine, poultry, and veal calves. The remainder of this section discusses the factors considered for the subcategorization of the CAFO industry and those that were selected as the basis of the final subcategories. 5.2.1 Animal Production, Manure Management, and Waste Handling Processes Production processes in the CAFO industry include all aspects of animal husbandry, animal housing, and type of animal operation. The type of production process, including animal type and housing, was one of the primary levels of subcategorizing the industry in the 1974 ELG. Furthermore, the waste handling and manure management practices at CAFOs are closely tied to housing practices and support the rationale for using these processes as a basis for subcategorization. As discussed in Chapter 4, Large beef feedlots, dairies, and heifer operations typically have outdoor confinement lots where animals are housed for all or at least a portion of their time. Large beef, dairy, and heifer operations keep animals in confinement on outdoor lots 5-3 and generate and manage both solid manure and liquid process wastewater that are affected by climate, especially precipitation. More specifically, the majority of Large beef feedlots are open feedlots, which are usually unpaved. These types of operations may use mounds in the pens to improve drainage and provide areas that dry quickly, because dry resting areas improve cattle comfort, health, and feed utilization, all of which contribute to efficient animal weight gain. In open feedlots, protection from the weather is often limited to a windbreak near the fence in the winter and sunshade in the summer; however, treatment facilities and hospital areas for the cattle are usually covered. Animals are fed two or three times daily, so a concrete apron is typically located along feedbunks and around waterers (i.e., heavy traffic areas). Wastes produced from beef feedlots include manure, bedding, spilled feed, and contaminated runoff. Unroofed confinement areas typically have a system for collecting and confining contaminated runoff. The runoff is typically managed in a storage pond and the manure from the open lots is often scraped and stacked into mounds or stockpiles. Beef feedlots typically use a settling basin to remove bulk solids from the liquid waste stream, reducing the volume of solids before the stream enters a storage pond. The primary function of a dairy is the production of milk, which requires a herd of mature dairy cows that are lactating. In order to produce milk, the cows must be bred and give birth. Therefore, a dairy operation may have several types of animal groups present including calves, heifers, cows that are close to calving, lactating dairy cows, dry cows, and bulls. Animals at dairy operations may be confined in a combination of freestall barns, outdoor dry lots, tie stalls, or loose housing (barns, shades, and corrals). Some animals may be allowed access to exercise yards or open pastures. At dairies, the most common type of housing for lactating cows includes freestalls, dry lots, tie stalls/stanchions, pastures, and combinations of these. Freestalls are the housing systems used by practically all Large dairy operations. The cows are not restrained in the freestalls and are allowed to roam on concrete alleys to the feeding and watering areas. Manure collects in the travel alleys and is typically removed with a tractor or mechanical alley-scraper, by flushing with water, or through slotted openings in the floor (refer to Section 4.3.5 for a more detailed description of waste handling). Dry lots are outside pens that allow the animals some exercise, but do not generally allow them to graze. These milking cows are not likely to spend their entire time in a freestall or on a dry lot, as they need to be milked at least twice a day at a tiestall or in a milking parlor. Most dairies have both wet and dry waste management systems. The dry waste (manure, bedding, and spilled feed) is typically collected from the housing and exercise areas by tractor scrapers and stored where an appreciable amount of rainfall or runoff does not come in contact with the waste. The wet waste (water from the barn and milking parlor cleaning operations, manure, and contaminated runoff) is typically stored in anaerobic lagoons. Like beef feedlots, dairies tend to use solid separators to remove bulk solids from a liquid waste stream. Waste associated with dairy production includes manure, contaminated runoff, milking parlor waste, bedding, spilled feed, and cooling water. Lactating cows require milking at least twice a day and are either milked in their
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Housed Livestock, Manure Storage, Manure Processing Draft Section for a Guidance Document
    Housed livestock, manure storage, manure processing Draft section for a Guidance Document Prepared by Barbara Amon and Lars Stoumann Jensen (session chairs) For discussion at the workshop on integrated sustainable nitrogen management, Brussels 30 September – 1 October 2019 This draft chapter to a planned Guidance Document on integrated sustainable nitrogen management has been prepared for the Task Force on Reactive Nitrogen under the UNECE Air Convention, with support from the European Commission. The process of drafting the Guidance Document started in connection to a workshop “Towards joined-up nitrogen guidance for air, water and climate co-benefits”, hosted in Brussels, 11-12 October 2016. The current chapter draft is based on the results from that workshop and on discussions and developments since then. It will be presented and discussed in Brussels on 30 September – 1 October at a second workshop jointly organised by the Task Force on Reactive Nitrogen and the European Commission. The content of the draft paper reflects the views only of the authors and the European Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information. 2 Housed livestock, manure storage, manure processing 1. Introduction and background 2. Why do we have emissions and how can they be influenced – the basics behind emission processes Nitrogen can take various forms (Fig. 1). Reactive nitrogen (Nr) includes all forms of nitrogen that are biologically, photochemically, and radiatively active. Compounds of nitrogen that are - - reactive include the following: nitrous oxide (N2O), nitrate (NO3 ), nitrite (NO2 ), ammonia + (NH3), and ammonium (NH4 ). Reactive forms of nitrogen are those capable of cascading through the environment and causing an impact through smog, acid rain, biodiversity loss, etc.1.
    [Show full text]
  • Manure Management Factsheet
    INDIANA NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE Helping People Help the Land. FACT SHEET Manure Management Properly managed manure can improve soil health, crop yields and reduce the risk of runoff to surface waters. June, 2014 Photo Source: IDEM NRCS works directly with farmers to manage NRCS ASSISTANCE Natural Resources manure as a valuable nutrient source in an BACKGROUND environmentally conscious manner. Properly NRCS helps farmers and landowners identify • Manure is a valuable fertilizer Conservation Service managed manure can improve soil health, natural resources concerns on their farm. containing varying amounts of nitrogen, crop yields, and reduce the risk of runoff to NRCS provides technical assistance at no cost phosphorus, potassium, micronutrients surface waters. to create a conservation plan and identify and organic matter, depending on conservation practices to address resource the livestock species and the manure MANURE MANAGEMENT concerns. handling and storage, as well as application methods. STANDARDS Practices may include nutrient application (590 standard) to address identified water quality • Manure is a cost-efficient form of Through a scientific planning process and or other concerns, or manure storage (313 and fertilizer for crops, that if managed and standards, NRCS works with farmers to 359 standards) to address an identified water applied correctly, can supply plant- address resource concerns on their farms. All quality, odor or other resource concern. nutrient needs and can enhance soil NRCS standards require
    [Show full text]
  • Manure Management for Water Quality: Costs to Animal Feeding Operations of Applying Manure Nutrients to Land
    Manure Management for Water Quality: Costs to Animal Feeding Operations of Applying Manure Nutrients to Land Marc Ribaudo, Noel Gollehon, Marcel Aillery, Jonathan Kaplan, Robert Johansson, Jean Agapoff, Lee Christensen, Vince Breneman, and Mark Peters Chapter 1–Introduction Livestock and poultry manure can provide valuable sion affecting the potential for contamination of water organic material and nutrients for crop and pasture resources by manure nutrients (Mulla et al., 1999). growth. However, nutrients contained in animal manure can degrade water quality if they are over- Recent policies and programs for increasing the effi- applied to land and enter water resources through cient use of nutrients and protecting water quality from runoff or leaching. The nutrients of greatest water nutrient runoff all emphasize the importance of proper- quality concern are nitrogen and phosphorus. Animal ly handling animal manure. The Unified Strategy for waste is a source of both. Animal Feeding Operations, jointly developed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the A shift in the livestock and poultry industry over the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in 1999, past several decades toward fewer, larger operations states: “Land application is the most common, and has prompted public concern over the use and disposal usually most desirable method of utilizing manure of animal manure. Manure lagoon spills in North because of the value of the nutrients and organic mat- Carolina and pfiesteria piscicida outbreaks in North ter. Land application should be planned to ensure that Carolina and Maryland have raised public concerns the proper amounts of all nutrients are applied in a about the way manure is stored and handled.
    [Show full text]
  • Sludge Management for Anaerobic Lagoons and Runoff Holding Ponds Amy Millmier Schmidt, Livestock Bioenvironmental Engineer
    ® ® University of Nebraska–Lincoln Extension, Institute of Agriculture and Natural Resources Know how. Know now. G1371 (Revised April 2013) Sludge Management for Anaerobic Lagoons and Runoff Holding Ponds Amy Millmier Schmidt, Livestock Bioenvironmental Engineer Annual sludge accumulation volume in an anaerobic This NebGuide defines critical issues to be addressed­ lagoon is estimated by the following equation (Natural by a sludge and sediment management plan for anaerobic Resources Conservation Service, 1992): lagoons and outdoor lot holding ponds. SV = 365 x AU x TS x SAR x T (Equation 1) Nebraska’s permit process for a Livestock Waste Control where: Facility (LWCF) requires a sludge and sediment management plan. The Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality AU = Number of 1,000 pound animal units (NDEQ) must approve this plan prior to issuing an NDEQ SV = Sludge volume in cubic feet operating permit to a livestock operation. T = Sludge accumulation time (years) TS = Total solids production per animal unit per Current Knowledge day (lb/AU/day) SAR = Sludge accumulation ratio (ft3/lb TS). See Preparing a sludge management plan should include Table I. recognizing our current knowledge of earthen structures. In this publication, an anaerobic lagoon refers to an impound- Table I. Sludge accumulation ratio (anaerobic lagoons only) and total ment with a permanent liquid pool for encouraging biological solids production for livestock. breakdown of manure and a storage volume. A runoff holding Total Solids Production (pounds/day/1,000 pond refers to an impoundment with a storage volume only pounds live weight) SAR for collecting storm water runoff from an outdoor lot such as Dairy 0.0728 a cattle feedlot.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 9 Agricultural Waste Management Systems
    Part 651 Agricultural Waste Management Field Handbook Chapter 9 Agricultural Waste Management Systems (210–VI–AWMFH, Amend. 47, December 2011) Chapter 9 Agricultural Waste Management Systems Part 651 Agricultural Waste Management Field Handbook Issued December 2011 The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or a part of an individual’s income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all pro- grams.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for commu- nication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250–9410, or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. (210–VI–AWMFH, Amend. 47, December 2011) Acknowledgments Chapter 9 was originally prepared and printed in 1992 under the direction of James N. Krider (retired), national environmental engineer, Soil Conser- vation Service (SCS), now Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). James D. Rickman (retired), environmental engineer, NRCS, Fort Worth, Texas, provided day-to-day coordination in the development of the hand- book. Authors for chapter 9 included L.M. “Mac” Safley, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC; William H. Boyd, environmental engineer, Lincoln, Nebraska; A.
    [Show full text]
  • Animal Waste Lagoon Water Quality Study
    Animal Waste Lagoon Water Quality Study A Research Report by Kansas State University June 23, 1999 Principal Investigators J.M. Ham, Department of Agronomy L.N. Reddi, Department of Civil Engineering C.W. Rice, Department of Agronomy Submitted in partial fulfillment of a contract between Kansas State University and the Kansas Water Office, Topeka, KS. Executive Summary Animal Waste Lagoon Water Quality Study J.M. Ham, L.M. Reddi, and C.W. Rice Kansas State University Report Period: May, 1998 to June, 1999 Anaerobic lagoons are used to collect, treat, and store waste at many concentrated animal operations (CAOs) in Kansas. Lagoons contain nutrients, salts, and other soluble chemicals that, in many cases, are eventually applied to crops as fertilizer. While waste is stored and treated in the lagoons, seepage losses from the sides and bottom of the containment could potentially affect soil and ground water quality. Of primary concern, is possible movement of nitrate-nitrogen into aquifers used to supply drinking water. Bacteria, which also are present in the waste, are another potential source for contamination. A comprehensive environmental assessment of lagoons requires three focus areas: (a) toxicity – what are the constituents in the lagoon waste that pose a threat to water quality and public health? (b) input loading – at what rate does waste seep from a lagoon under field conditions? and (c) aquifer vulnerability – how do soil properties, geology, and water table depth affect the risk of waste movement from the lagoon to the ground water? Researchers at Kansas State University (KSU), in cooperation with the Kansas Water Office, are conducting research to examine these issues.
    [Show full text]
  • 3 Zoonotic Waterborne Pathogen Loads in Livestock
    3 Zoonotic waterborne pathogen loads in livestock Edward R. Atwill, Xunde Li, Delia Grace and Victor Gannon 3.1 INTRODUCTION 3.1.1 Objectives This chapter provides an overview on the prevalence and environmental load of waterborne zoonotic pathogens of public health importance shed in the excreta of livestock. Chapter 2 presents the five zoonotic pathogens that will be reviewed in this book: Cryptosporidium parvum, Giardia duodenalis, Escherichia coli O157:H7, Salmonella, and Campylobacter. These protozoa and bacteria are important disease-causing agents and satisfy the three criteria agreed to be classified as priority one waterborne zoonotic pathogens associated with livestock populations: capacity to induce clinical illness in susceptible humans, © 2012 World Health Organization (WHO). Animal Waste, Water Quality and Human Health. Edited by Al Dufour, Jamie Bartram, Robert Bos and Victor Gannon. ISBN: 9781780401232. Published by IWA Publishing, London, UK. 74 Animal Waste, Water Quality and Human Health capability to be transmitted to humans through water, and prevalence in a biological reservoir host including one or more livestock species. A biological reservoir is defined as a host (in the context of this book: a livestock species) that allows the pathogen to amplify or reproduce and not merely pass through. Information on the prevalence, intensity and environmental load of these five pathogens is presented along with methodological concerns on how we draw inferences from these measures of occurrence and the human health risk they represent. Important aspects of the ecology and epidemiology of these five pathogens in livestock populations are also discussed in as much as they may be useful in the development of intervention strategies to limit their prevalence in livestock and to reduce the risks of waterborne transmission to humans.
    [Show full text]
  • Manure Management Guidelines Management Agency (WQMA) the WQMA
    Cayuga County Water Quality Management Agency March 2, 2017 Cayuga County Water Quality The Nutrient Working Group of Manure Management Guidelines Management Agency (WQMA) the WQMA Stephen Lynch, Chair Eileen O’Connor, Chair Eileen O'Connor , Vice-Chair Bob Brower Gary Duckett Nick Colas* Doug Kierst Brian Hall Bruce Natale Rick Nelson Doug Ververs Judy Wright Edward Wagner Jim Young Seth Jensen *Meeting facilitator and report editor Harry Hinman Jim Young The Nutrient Working Group also wishes Carl Wiezalis to thank the agricultural producers and INTRODUCTION Dale Powell consulting professionals who provided insightful comments on previous drafts Barbara Harvey of this document. In February of 2016 the Cayuga County Legislature voted to adopt a plan titled Bob Brower Improving Manure Management: A Fourteen-Point Countywide Agenda for Action. Kathleen Gorr The plan outlines actions the County can take to foster improvement of manure management practices and minimize the potential negative environmental impacts of manure runoff. While County officials are aware that it is necessary to examine all of the many possible sources of nutrient pollution, the adoption of the plan underscored the Legislature’s desire to focus attention on matters relating to manure as an im- portant immediate step in reaffirming its commitment to water quality. One of the tasks discussed in the Agenda for Action involves developing a set of specific manure management guidelines for the County to promote. The task of developing the guidelines was assigned to the County’s Water Quality Management Agency (WQMA). This document presents the results of the efforts of a working group of the WQMA to formulate guidelines intended to encourage progress through expanded voluntary use of proven, cost-effective methods, technologies, and tech- niques rather than force changes through legislation or rule-making.
    [Show full text]
  • MANURE NUTRIENT MANAGEMENT Much Good
    MANURE NUTRIENT MANAGEMENT Money is like manure. Unless you spread it around, it doesn't do much good NutrientsNutrients ofof PrimaryPrimary ConcernConcern NitrogenNitrogen --NN PhosphorusPhosphorus -- PP P Transport To Surface Waters Soil Surface Soluble P (Dissolved) Particulate P (Sediment) R unoff ~ 1/2 - 1“ Soil/Water Soil Mixing Zone Dissolved P vs. 0 to 2-Inch Soil Test P adapted from Sharpley et al. 1994. JEQ 23:437-451 1.6 1.4 Grassland, r 2 = 0.62 1.2 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 Cropland, r 2 = 0.85 0.2 Grassland, r 2 = 0.90 Dissolved P in Runoff, ppm Dissolved P in Runoff, ppm 0 0 100 200 300 400 500 Mehlich 3 Soil test P, lb/A Tillage D P PP Total DP Total PP Intensity Concentration Loss (lb/A) Reduced ? Conventional ? DP = Dissolved P PP = Particulate P Several Studies Indicate That Up To 90% Of Annual P Loading May Come From Less Than 10% Of Landscape (Heathwaite et al., 1998) P Threshold Approach • Critical soil test levels established above which P applications are prohibited or restricted • Critical soil test levels based on water quality criteria ? P Threshold Approach •Advantages – Simple, understandable and easy to implement – Based on water quality (hopefully) – Much better than agronomic response soil test approach •Disadvantages – Assumes all of landscape has equal environmental sensitivity – Does not consider P transport – Developed mainly for manure management – Does not address cultural management of soils – Based on limited data Critical STP Values State Level Method -- mg/kg -- AR 150 Mehlich 3 CO 100 AB-DTPA DE 120 Mehlich
    [Show full text]
  • Water Pollution from Agriculture: a Global Review
    LED BY Water pollution from agriculture: a global review Executive summary © FAO & IWMI, 2017 I7754EN/1/08.17 Water pollution from agriculture: a global review Executive summary by Javier Mateo-Sagasta (IWMI), Sara Marjani Zadeh (FAO) and Hugh Turral with contributions from Jacob Burke (formerly FAO) Published by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations Rome, 2017 and the International Water Management Institute on behalf of the Water Land and Ecosystems research program Colombo, 2017 FAO and IWMI encourage the use, reproduction and dissemination of material in this information product. Except where otherwise indicated, material may be copied, downloaded and printed for private study, research and teaching purposes, or for use in non-commercial products or services, provided that appropriate acknowledgement of FAO and IWMI as the source and copyright holder is given and that FAO’s and IWMI’s endorsement of users’ views, products or services is not implied in any way. All requests for translation and adaptation rights, and for resale and other commercial use rights should be made via www.fao.org/contact-us/licence- request or addressed to [email protected]. FAO information products are available on the FAO website (www.fao.org/ publications) and can be purchased through [email protected]” © FAO and IWMI, 2017 Cover photograph: © Jim Holmes/IWMI Neil Palmer (IWMI) A GLOBAL WATER-QUALITY CRISIS AND THE ROLE OF AGRICULTURE Water pollution is a global challenge that has increased in both developed and developing countries, undermining economic growth as well as the physical and environmental health of billions of people.
    [Show full text]
  • Manure Management for Environmental Protection
    Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection MANURE MANAGEMENT FOR ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection 361-0300-001 / November 15, 2001 DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION BUREAU OF WATERSHED MANAGEMENT DOCUMENT NUMBER: 361-0300-001 TITLE: Manure Management for Environmental Protection EFFECTIVE DATE: November 15, 2001 AUTHORITY: 25 Pa. Code Chapter 91, Section 91.36 PURPOSE: Provides practices for livestock and poultry operations under which DEP approval or a permit is not required. Also, describes related requirements under the Nutrient Management Act and the Pennsylvania Strategy for Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations. APPLICABILITY: Describes technical practices for all livestock and poultry operations in Pennsylvania. IMPACT: The revision of this section of the Manure Management Manual updates and clarifies current requirements for livestock and poultry operations and provides a description of DEP approved practices. DISCLAIMER: The policies and procedures outlined in this guidance document are intended to supplement existing requirements. Nothing in the policies or procedures shall affect regulatory requirements. The policies and procedures herein are not an adjudication or a regulation. There is not intent on the part of DEP to give the rules in these policies that weight or deference. This document establishes the framework, within which DEP will exercise its administrative discretion in the future. DEP reserves the discretion to deviate
    [Show full text]
  • Lagoon Systems Can Provide Low-Cost Wastewater Treatment
    Spring 1997 Vol. 8, No. 2 L SMALL A F N L O O I W T A S N C L E E S A U Pipeline R I N G H O Small Community Wastewater Issues Explained to the Public Lagoon Systems Can Provide Low-Cost Wastewater Treatment t is no wonder that one of the for homes on large lots in areas where other treatment more efficient, so that less land most popular methods for onsite systems or sewers are too costly or area is necessary, and aerators can be used to I wastewater treatment around the otherwise impractical. Lagoons also work upgrade some existing systems to treat more world is also one of the simplest well for many seasonal rental properties and wastewater. and least expensive. Lagoon systems use recreational areas, because they are able to Every lagoon system must be individually natural and energy-efficient processes to handle intermittent periods of both light and designed to fit its specific site and use. provide low-cost wastewater treatment. heavy use. Designs are based on such factors as the They are one of the most cost-effective type of soil, the amount of land area wastewater treatment options for many What are lagoon systems? available, the climate, and the amount of homes and communities. There are several different types and sunlight and wind in an area. In the U.S., most wastewater treatment names for lagoons and many possible Other important design considerations for lagoons are found in small and rural system designs. Lagoon systems include lagoon systems include the amount and type communities.
    [Show full text]