Pendleton County, WV
Integrated Waste Management Facility Plan & Feasibility Study Evaluation
Final Report
August 7, 2000
Prepared by J. Glenn Eugster, National Park Service, National Capital Region for the Potomac American Heritage River Initiative
Contents
Background & Purpose Page 3
Evaluation Process Page 4
Summary of Evaluation Comments Page 5
Summary of Major Interests & Issues Page 6
Conclusions Page 11
Further Information Page 13
Appendix (Available in hard-copy only)
Request from Senator Byrd
Comments by State of West Virginia Department of
Agriculture
Comments from U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region III, Office of Municipal Assistance, Philadelphia, PA.
Comments from Taylor & Thomas Environmental Inc.,Dunedin,
FL
Comments from Poultry Water Quality Consortium,
Chattanooga, TN
Comments from U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Policy, Washington, DC
G. Comments from Virginia Cooperative Extension, Blacksburg, VA
H. List of Integrated Waste Management facilities from Taylor & Thomas
I. POWER Performance Profile
I. Background & Purpose: The following report is an evaluation of a proposal by Pendleton County, WV to develop and evaluate alternative methods for the Town of Franklin and Pendleton County to manage or dispose of agricultural and municipal wastes. This document is a revision of the June 13, 2000 Revised Draft Evaluation and is the final report.
This evaluation has been conducted, as part of the Potomac American Heritage River (AHR) Initiative, at the request of the Honorable Robert C. Byrd, U.S. Senator, West Virginia and the Pendleton County Economic and Community Development Authority.
The purpose of this report is to provide an independent review and objective evaluation of the content of the “Facility Plan & Feasibility Study for an Integrated Waste Management Facility for the Town of Franklin and the Pendleton County Economic and Community Development Authority in WV”. The proposal entails construction of an anaerobic digestion system and fertilizer production facility located near Franklin, WV.
This evaluation focused on the technology of the proposed facility and did not attempt to evaluate the site selection, public input or cost-effectiveness of this effort. West Virginia University has undertaken an evaluation of the profitability of the proposed facility. Local government officials, within the existing State and federal regulatory framework, will decide an appropriate location for the facility should this project be implemented.
The intent of the evaluation is to provide technical advice to elected officials and local decision-makers as they examine alternatives for managing poultry waste and sewage. The opinions expressed in this evaluation should not be construed in any way as a predetermination of what the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s, or other WV or federal government regulatory agency’s, ultimate decision might be should a Federal permit be required in the future.
The evaluation is part of assistance made available through the Potomac AHR initiative. The purpose of the AHR effort is “to support communities in their efforts to restore and protect America’s rivers”.
The Pendleton County, WV proposal was included, at the request of local officials, in the “Nomination of the Potomac River Basin as an American Heritage River” by the Friends of the Potomac. In that application the Poultry Waste Energy Recovery (POWER) proposal was recognized and described as one of the Friends’ visions “to improve water quality and foster environmental restoration”. Specifically the Friends proposal, which was the basis for designation of the Potomac watershed, noted that “Commercial models of the Poultry Waste Energy Recovery Digester should provide an attractive mechanism to combine financial gain and pollution reduction in the same project”.
Evaluation Process: The Report of Findings: Phase
III Facility Plan & Feasibility Study, Integrated Waste Management Facility and Appendix H: Preliminary Process Design Considerations were provided to a group of Federal and State government agency and non-government representatives who were identified and selected after research of this issue and technology. Information for this report was gathered through a review of documents supplied by Taylor & Thomas Environmental, Inc., telephone conversations, a site visit to the waste treatment site in Moorefield, group meetings in person and by telephone, and a teleconference presentation on anaerobic digestion systems.
This evaluation has also been challenged to find people with expertise in this technology that are comfortable commenting on a state and local initiative outside of their area. West Virginia, like most other States, has a very strong tradition of "home rule". Several government and private sector representatives with experience in this type of work were reluctant to provide input, or be quoted, in a WV matter.
The initial request for this evaluation sought to have participation by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the State of WV, and other government and private sector experts. After telephone research, involving more than thirty conversations with identified public and private experts, the Poultry Water Quality Consortium was contacted and asked for assistance. The Consortium is a cooperative effort, between EPA, USDA, the Tennessee Valley Authority, and the U.S. Poultry & Egg Association, which strives to identify and adopt environmentally and economically prudent uses of poultry by-products.
It was felt that this government and business partnership was best suited to provide an objective evaluation of the proposal because of their economic and environmental goals.
The following persons either participated in discussions, and/or, provided written comments, which are included in the appendix, on the proposal:
Professor Eldridge R. Collins, Jr. of the Virginia Cooperative Extension, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
Dennis Crabtree, Taylor & Thomas Environmental, Inc. Dunedin, FL.
Larry Goff, Poultry Water Quality Consortium, Chattanooga, TN.
Victoria Binetti, Hank Zygmunt, Leo Essentheir, Jim Curren, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, Water Protection Division, Philadelphia, PA.
Kevin Miller, Karen Zachary, Charles Estes, Scott Rotruck, William Plank, Harold Michael, Friends of the Potomac, Washington, DC.
Janet Fisher, Steve Miller, State of West Virginia, Department of Agriculture, Charleston, WV
Roberta Parry, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Policy, Office of Policy Development, Washington, D.C.
Dr. David Stafford,Ph.D. at Enviro-Control Ltd.
Bill Ross, Senior Project Manager, Lockwood Greene, Atlanta, GA.
III. Summary of Evaluation Comments:
A group of representatives from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III Office and Office of Policy (EPA), the State of West Virginia Department of Agriculture (WV), the Poultry Water Quality Consortium, and the Friends of the Potomac have reviewed the Pendleton County Integrated Waste Management Facility Plan and Feasibility Study. The reviewers have agreed that it is important to be supportive of State, local government and private industry initiatives to improve the management of poultry by-products.
The group believes that anaerobic digestion technology has worked successfully at the Moorefield Poultry Waste Energy Recovery Project (POWER) and in anaerobic waste digestion systems in Western Europe and Belgium.
However, there is no agreement between the reviewers about whether the Pendleton County project is the most effective way to manage poultry litter, mortalities and municipal waste. This disagreement is primarily based on:
the proposed mixing of human and poultry waste streams,
as opposed to managing the waste streams separately, and as compared to other poultry waste management alternatives;
disagreement regarding the qualifications of the
reviewers;
the uncertainty, in the opinion of some of the
reviewers, of the cost-effectiveness assumptions made in the proposal; and,
4) the lack of any verification, by an accredited U.S. Land Grant or Agricultural Research Service, of the performance of this type of anaerobic digestion system in managing mixed waste streams in other countries.
In addition, the review group was unable to reach agreement on overall recommendations or next steps.
It is recommended that an accredited U.S. Land Grant or Agricultural Research Service evaluate this proposal to determine whether it should be carried out as proposed.
IV. Summary of Major Interests & Issues:
Economic & Environmental Goals
The Federal government, including the President and his Cabinet Agencies, has recognized and support, through Presidential Executive Order 13061, the need to improve the management of animal wastes in the Potomac Highlands Region of WV. Through the American Heritage Rivers Initiative, as well as other EPA and USDA efforts, the federal government has made a commitment to support local communities in their efforts to conserve natural resources, protect and restore water quality and create new business opportunities.
The vast majority of the Potomac watershed is rural, much of it devoted to agricultural uses. Poultry farming and processing are important to local economies in several areas especially the Potomac Highlands of WV. In Moorefield, for example, reportedly three of every four residents have an occupation related to the poultry industry.
EPA has recognized the headwaters of the Potomac River watershed, within Pendleton County as well as other areas, as threatened due to poultry farming and confined livestock feeding operations. These uses have contributed to nutrient over enrichment from too much nitrogen and phosphorous, leading to oxygen robbing algae blooms.
In an effort to achieve environmental protection and economic prosperity simultaneously the Pendleton County Economic and Community Development Authority sought the assistance of the American Heritage River Initiative through the Friends of the Potomac—the lead community partner for this effort. Pendleton County sought to use AHR assistance to support the Integrated Waste Management Facility as a new economic and environmental solution to managing poultry by-products and human waste. The intent of this AHR project is to be a Potomac watershed demonstration project.
Mixing Waste Streams
The Pendleton County proposal recommends mixing municipal waste, municipal wastewater and poultry waste. The integration of these waste streams was based on two major reasons: local needs and the specifications contained in a funding "Request for Proposals" issued by the West Virginia Region 8 Planning and Development Council.
The decision to mix waste streams has increased concerns about this project from EPA, the Poultry Water Quality Consortium and industry reviewers. These reviewers have questioned, “Why are we mixing human waste and animal waste and mortality?” They feel that each waste stream has its unique characteristics and treatment needs. Some experts indicated that this waste mixing is counter-intuitive and don’t understand the priority given to this approach. They feel it would be appropriate to assess whether it is more cost-effective to deal with the waste streams independently, rather than as a mixture.
State of WV and Taylor & Thomas reviewers indicated that the County proposal recognizes three problems and wants to look at the most cost-effective approach to handle them. State and community leaders have tested this approach at the Poultry Waste Energy Recovery (POWER) Project at Moorefield, WV. They also visited other anaerobic digesters in England and Belgium to look at this technology and came back with the idea of combining the waste management processes. They hope that this proposal will solve these problems and get people out of the litter management business.
Current Technology
At the present time there are no other projects within the United States that are using anaerobic digestion systems to manage this type of an integrated waste stream. As a result, U.S. experts contacted during this evaluation did not have first-hand experience with the approach being proposed for Pendleton County.
Also, the proposed technology has not been researched by U.S. Land Grant University researchers or the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Agriculture Research Service. Such a review is a common way to establish best management practices, within industry and the government, for poultry waste management.
Many of the persons contacted during this evaluation have had considerable experience in poultry waste, integrated waste management and municipal waste and wastewater treatment. In addition, the persons involved in the research and design of the Pendleton County proposal have considerable experience with anaerobic digestion systems.
The results of this evaluation indicate that the experts involved with the Pendleton County project are confident that this type of technology will successfully manage a mixed waste stream. This confidence is based largely on the results of the Moorefield, WV POWER Project and other similar waste management projects in Europe.
Experts, from outside the project area, have not been directly involved with the POWER Project in Moorefield or the European work. They feel that the European research needs to be verified by an accredited U.S. Land Grant University or Agricultural Research Service before that experience has standing.
In addition, their experience with poultry waste and water quality management leads them to believe that there are more effective ways to manage poultry by-products, municipal waste and wastewater.
4. Specific Issues
The Poultry Water Quality Consortium and others within the academic and poultry industry were contacted during this evaluation and their general conclusion is that this technology will work. The Poultry Water Quality Consortium indicated that there is no question that this type of system will work but that there are a lot of questions about costs and what happens to by-products related to this specific proposal.
EPA reviewers, as well as many others, expressed serious concerns about mixing waste streams and other concerns about odors, phosphorous, mixing metals with compost, operational demands of anaerobic thermophilic digesters and sequencing batch reactors, contingency plans and staffing. They indicated that there are a series of technical questions that should be addressed early in the planning process. For example, EPA reviewers questioned whether the technology proposed would be suitable for changing waste streams—if there is a significant wet-weather flow, or digester downtime.
EPA Region III also expressed concern about the feasibility of the facility, and did not feel that the project is ready to go to design.
Taylor & Thomas indicated that this Phase III facility plan is based on preliminary engineering design, and that a treatability study of the intermediate process effluent must be completed in the next stage of engineering before the design capacity of the Sequencing Batch Reactor (SBR) system can be finalized. The SBR system represents a very insignificant portion of the total project cost and its design can be significantly modified with little impact on the project economics.
The group agreed that this a first generation technology within the U.S. and that successful examples of this technology are being used in Europe using different waste streams. Brief information on other efforts, provided at the request of the group by Taylor & Thomas Environmental Inc., is included in the appendix.
The State of WV and Taylor & Thomas reviewers emphasized that the technology demonstrations by the WV Department of Agriculture have verified that this treatment strategy is technically viable. The proposed facility has incorporated five years of experience gained from the POWER thermophillic anaerobic digestion technology project in Moorefield, WV. Their research has also included the experience of similar existing digestion systems in Western Europe and the Gent facility in Belgium which treats a mixture of municipal sewage and hog waste successfully.
WV and Taylor & Thomas stressed that the simultaneous treatment of the mixed stream offers an opportunity to profitably replace the unsatisfactorily performing, wastewater treatment lagoons at the Town of Franklin with a facility that meets the forecasted needs of the town for the next twenty years; while at the same time mitigating the potentially detrimental environmental impact created by the local poultry industry.
They also stressed that the project offers an opportunity to provide 25-30 new jobs in Pendleton County.
Other Alternatives
EPA reviewers suggested that facility design consider other technologies to manage these waste streams. EPA and Poultry Water Quality Consortium reviewers said that we may be missing an opportunity to look broader and more effectively in the way we use the funds that are proposed for this facility.
Research for this evaluation included looking at other alternatives for managing poultry by-products. The Poultry Water Quality Consortium has produced a “Poultry Water Quality Handbook” which seeks to consolidate information, ideas and references to enhance water quality. State Universities, Research Scientists and USDA Agricultural Research Scientists generated the handbook. The techniques and technologies included in the handbook have gone through a review process and are considered “best management practices” by the governments and industries participating in the Consortium.
A variety of alternatives are identified in the handbook for managing poultry waste and mortality. However, thermophilic anaerobic poultry digestion systems have not been researched or reviewed by the Consortium and are not included, or endorsed, in the handbook.
Of the various alternatives that may be considered by Pendleton County, land application seems to be a preference with some reviewers. EPA and Poultry Water Quality Consortium reviewers expressed concern that the disadvantages of land application have been significantly over estimated. EPA and the Consortium believe that the best management practice for poultry mortalities are on-site composting, not digestion.
EPA reviewers expressed concern that there hasn’t been an analysis of handling each of the waste streams individually (i.e. poultry litter, mortality, municipal wastewater). Taylor & Thomas clarified that the watersheds, which are the focus of this project, are where 60% of the poultry operations are located. The Potomac Valley Soil and Water Conservation District report cited in the proposal indicates that the watersheds where more than 2 tons of litter was produced per acre of treatable agriculture land would be a concern. Pendleton County reportedly has .67 tons per acre being produced now. Based on these figures, EPA and Consortium reviewers feel that relocation or transport of the litter outside of the area needs evaluation.
V. Conclusions:
Pendleton County’s Economic & Community Development
Authority should be applauded for their initiative and foresight in trying to bring new technology into the State, and for applying it to serious environmental issues being experienced in Potomac Highlands. Pendleton County’s initiative was in response to State of West Virginia and National initiatives, by Congress, USDA , EPA, and the WV Department of Agriculture about the handling of animal waste and the need locally to achieve environmental and economic quality in the region. It also was in response to, and endorsed by, the President’s Executive Order on American Heritage Rivers Initiative. Community-based efforts such as this effort should be supported, as indicated by Executive Order 13061, with financial, technical and information assistance within existing programs.
The State Department of Agriculture is supportive
of the Pendleton County project as well as other applications of the POWER technology to address the more effective management of poultry by-products in West Virginia. The State believes that the Moorefield Project and the experiences of European anaerobic digesters have proven the technology.
Discussions with professionals indicate that there is agreement that anaerobic digestion systems will work. However, there is disagreement as to whether this proposal is supportable as proposed. The State of WV Department of Agriculture believes that the technology is one alternative to dealing with poultry waste by-products in an environmentally responsible manner. The other reviewers are not willing to recommend, or endorse, this project as proposed until formal research and analysis by an accredited Land Grant University or Agricultural Research Service has occurred.
3. There is no agreement between the reviewers on the proposal to include a mix of human and poultry waste and mortalities. The disagreement seems to revolve around the lack of consideration of other alternatives for treating the municipal and poultry wastes, the preliminary nature of the project design cost and understanding of the operational requirements.
It may be useful to consider the following actions to
address comments and fulfills existing commitments to support Pendleton County’s efforts. Please note that these suggestions do not reflect a consensus agreement among the interests participating in this evaluation.
The State of WV Department of Agriculture or Pendleton
County could request an accredited Land Grant University Program or Agricultural Research Service (ARS), from WV or elsewhere, to research this technology and proposal to determine whether it is an alternative endorsed by industry, agricultural and environmental protection interests for the management of poultry by-products. Such a review could prove useful in decision-making for the Pendleton County facility as well as others proposals within WV and nationwide.
EPA and USDA could reaffirm their commitment to
American Heritage Rivers and the Pendleton County project by offering to provide federal financial and technical assistance to conduct the Land Grant or Agricultural Research Service research and evaluation.
The State of WV Department of Agriculture and Pendleton
County could arrange for the involved agencies and organizations to visit the Moorefield, WV POWER Project; and/ or investigate assistance through a private foundation or government program to arrange for a trip to Western Europe and Belgium for agency representatives and local leaders to further research this technology.
VI. For Further Information: For additional information on this draft evaluation contact Glenn Eugster, Assistant Regional Director, Partnerships, National Park Service, National Capital Region, 1100 Ohio Drive, SW, Washington, DC 20242. By telephone call (202)619-7492. By telefax (202)401-0017. By e-mail: glenn_eugster@nps.gov.
Integrated Waste Management Facility Plan & Feasibility Study Evaluation
Final Report
August 7, 2000
Prepared by J. Glenn Eugster, National Park Service, National Capital Region for the Potomac American Heritage River Initiative
Contents
Background & Purpose Page 3
Evaluation Process Page 4
Summary of Evaluation Comments Page 5
Summary of Major Interests & Issues Page 6
Conclusions Page 11
Further Information Page 13
Appendix (Available in hard-copy only)
Request from Senator Byrd
Comments by State of West Virginia Department of
Agriculture
Comments from U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region III, Office of Municipal Assistance, Philadelphia, PA.
Comments from Taylor & Thomas Environmental Inc.,Dunedin,
FL
Comments from Poultry Water Quality Consortium,
Chattanooga, TN
Comments from U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Policy, Washington, DC
G. Comments from Virginia Cooperative Extension, Blacksburg, VA
H. List of Integrated Waste Management facilities from Taylor & Thomas
I. POWER Performance Profile
I. Background & Purpose: The following report is an evaluation of a proposal by Pendleton County, WV to develop and evaluate alternative methods for the Town of Franklin and Pendleton County to manage or dispose of agricultural and municipal wastes. This document is a revision of the June 13, 2000 Revised Draft Evaluation and is the final report.
This evaluation has been conducted, as part of the Potomac American Heritage River (AHR) Initiative, at the request of the Honorable Robert C. Byrd, U.S. Senator, West Virginia and the Pendleton County Economic and Community Development Authority.
The purpose of this report is to provide an independent review and objective evaluation of the content of the “Facility Plan & Feasibility Study for an Integrated Waste Management Facility for the Town of Franklin and the Pendleton County Economic and Community Development Authority in WV”. The proposal entails construction of an anaerobic digestion system and fertilizer production facility located near Franklin, WV.
This evaluation focused on the technology of the proposed facility and did not attempt to evaluate the site selection, public input or cost-effectiveness of this effort. West Virginia University has undertaken an evaluation of the profitability of the proposed facility. Local government officials, within the existing State and federal regulatory framework, will decide an appropriate location for the facility should this project be implemented.
The intent of the evaluation is to provide technical advice to elected officials and local decision-makers as they examine alternatives for managing poultry waste and sewage. The opinions expressed in this evaluation should not be construed in any way as a predetermination of what the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s, or other WV or federal government regulatory agency’s, ultimate decision might be should a Federal permit be required in the future.
The evaluation is part of assistance made available through the Potomac AHR initiative. The purpose of the AHR effort is “to support communities in their efforts to restore and protect America’s rivers”.
The Pendleton County, WV proposal was included, at the request of local officials, in the “Nomination of the Potomac River Basin as an American Heritage River” by the Friends of the Potomac. In that application the Poultry Waste Energy Recovery (POWER) proposal was recognized and described as one of the Friends’ visions “to improve water quality and foster environmental restoration”. Specifically the Friends proposal, which was the basis for designation of the Potomac watershed, noted that “Commercial models of the Poultry Waste Energy Recovery Digester should provide an attractive mechanism to combine financial gain and pollution reduction in the same project”.
Evaluation Process: The Report of Findings: Phase
III Facility Plan & Feasibility Study, Integrated Waste Management Facility and Appendix H: Preliminary Process Design Considerations were provided to a group of Federal and State government agency and non-government representatives who were identified and selected after research of this issue and technology. Information for this report was gathered through a review of documents supplied by Taylor & Thomas Environmental, Inc., telephone conversations, a site visit to the waste treatment site in Moorefield, group meetings in person and by telephone, and a teleconference presentation on anaerobic digestion systems.
This evaluation has also been challenged to find people with expertise in this technology that are comfortable commenting on a state and local initiative outside of their area. West Virginia, like most other States, has a very strong tradition of "home rule". Several government and private sector representatives with experience in this type of work were reluctant to provide input, or be quoted, in a WV matter.
The initial request for this evaluation sought to have participation by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the State of WV, and other government and private sector experts. After telephone research, involving more than thirty conversations with identified public and private experts, the Poultry Water Quality Consortium was contacted and asked for assistance. The Consortium is a cooperative effort, between EPA, USDA, the Tennessee Valley Authority, and the U.S. Poultry & Egg Association, which strives to identify and adopt environmentally and economically prudent uses of poultry by-products.
It was felt that this government and business partnership was best suited to provide an objective evaluation of the proposal because of their economic and environmental goals.
The following persons either participated in discussions, and/or, provided written comments, which are included in the appendix, on the proposal:
Professor Eldridge R. Collins, Jr. of the Virginia Cooperative Extension, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
Dennis Crabtree, Taylor & Thomas Environmental, Inc. Dunedin, FL.
Larry Goff, Poultry Water Quality Consortium, Chattanooga, TN.
Victoria Binetti, Hank Zygmunt, Leo Essentheir, Jim Curren, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, Water Protection Division, Philadelphia, PA.
Kevin Miller, Karen Zachary, Charles Estes, Scott Rotruck, William Plank, Harold Michael, Friends of the Potomac, Washington, DC.
Janet Fisher, Steve Miller, State of West Virginia, Department of Agriculture, Charleston, WV
Roberta Parry, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Policy, Office of Policy Development, Washington, D.C.
Dr. David Stafford,Ph.D. at Enviro-Control Ltd.
Bill Ross, Senior Project Manager, Lockwood Greene, Atlanta, GA.
III. Summary of Evaluation Comments:
A group of representatives from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III Office and Office of Policy (EPA), the State of West Virginia Department of Agriculture (WV), the Poultry Water Quality Consortium, and the Friends of the Potomac have reviewed the Pendleton County Integrated Waste Management Facility Plan and Feasibility Study. The reviewers have agreed that it is important to be supportive of State, local government and private industry initiatives to improve the management of poultry by-products.
The group believes that anaerobic digestion technology has worked successfully at the Moorefield Poultry Waste Energy Recovery Project (POWER) and in anaerobic waste digestion systems in Western Europe and Belgium.
However, there is no agreement between the reviewers about whether the Pendleton County project is the most effective way to manage poultry litter, mortalities and municipal waste. This disagreement is primarily based on:
the proposed mixing of human and poultry waste streams,
as opposed to managing the waste streams separately, and as compared to other poultry waste management alternatives;
disagreement regarding the qualifications of the
reviewers;
the uncertainty, in the opinion of some of the
reviewers, of the cost-effectiveness assumptions made in the proposal; and,
4) the lack of any verification, by an accredited U.S. Land Grant or Agricultural Research Service, of the performance of this type of anaerobic digestion system in managing mixed waste streams in other countries.
In addition, the review group was unable to reach agreement on overall recommendations or next steps.
It is recommended that an accredited U.S. Land Grant or Agricultural Research Service evaluate this proposal to determine whether it should be carried out as proposed.
IV. Summary of Major Interests & Issues:
Economic & Environmental Goals
The Federal government, including the President and his Cabinet Agencies, has recognized and support, through Presidential Executive Order 13061, the need to improve the management of animal wastes in the Potomac Highlands Region of WV. Through the American Heritage Rivers Initiative, as well as other EPA and USDA efforts, the federal government has made a commitment to support local communities in their efforts to conserve natural resources, protect and restore water quality and create new business opportunities.
The vast majority of the Potomac watershed is rural, much of it devoted to agricultural uses. Poultry farming and processing are important to local economies in several areas especially the Potomac Highlands of WV. In Moorefield, for example, reportedly three of every four residents have an occupation related to the poultry industry.
EPA has recognized the headwaters of the Potomac River watershed, within Pendleton County as well as other areas, as threatened due to poultry farming and confined livestock feeding operations. These uses have contributed to nutrient over enrichment from too much nitrogen and phosphorous, leading to oxygen robbing algae blooms.
In an effort to achieve environmental protection and economic prosperity simultaneously the Pendleton County Economic and Community Development Authority sought the assistance of the American Heritage River Initiative through the Friends of the Potomac—the lead community partner for this effort. Pendleton County sought to use AHR assistance to support the Integrated Waste Management Facility as a new economic and environmental solution to managing poultry by-products and human waste. The intent of this AHR project is to be a Potomac watershed demonstration project.
Mixing Waste Streams
The Pendleton County proposal recommends mixing municipal waste, municipal wastewater and poultry waste. The integration of these waste streams was based on two major reasons: local needs and the specifications contained in a funding "Request for Proposals" issued by the West Virginia Region 8 Planning and Development Council.
The decision to mix waste streams has increased concerns about this project from EPA, the Poultry Water Quality Consortium and industry reviewers. These reviewers have questioned, “Why are we mixing human waste and animal waste and mortality?” They feel that each waste stream has its unique characteristics and treatment needs. Some experts indicated that this waste mixing is counter-intuitive and don’t understand the priority given to this approach. They feel it would be appropriate to assess whether it is more cost-effective to deal with the waste streams independently, rather than as a mixture.
State of WV and Taylor & Thomas reviewers indicated that the County proposal recognizes three problems and wants to look at the most cost-effective approach to handle them. State and community leaders have tested this approach at the Poultry Waste Energy Recovery (POWER) Project at Moorefield, WV. They also visited other anaerobic digesters in England and Belgium to look at this technology and came back with the idea of combining the waste management processes. They hope that this proposal will solve these problems and get people out of the litter management business.
Current Technology
At the present time there are no other projects within the United States that are using anaerobic digestion systems to manage this type of an integrated waste stream. As a result, U.S. experts contacted during this evaluation did not have first-hand experience with the approach being proposed for Pendleton County.
Also, the proposed technology has not been researched by U.S. Land Grant University researchers or the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Agriculture Research Service. Such a review is a common way to establish best management practices, within industry and the government, for poultry waste management.
Many of the persons contacted during this evaluation have had considerable experience in poultry waste, integrated waste management and municipal waste and wastewater treatment. In addition, the persons involved in the research and design of the Pendleton County proposal have considerable experience with anaerobic digestion systems.
The results of this evaluation indicate that the experts involved with the Pendleton County project are confident that this type of technology will successfully manage a mixed waste stream. This confidence is based largely on the results of the Moorefield, WV POWER Project and other similar waste management projects in Europe.
Experts, from outside the project area, have not been directly involved with the POWER Project in Moorefield or the European work. They feel that the European research needs to be verified by an accredited U.S. Land Grant University or Agricultural Research Service before that experience has standing.
In addition, their experience with poultry waste and water quality management leads them to believe that there are more effective ways to manage poultry by-products, municipal waste and wastewater.
4. Specific Issues
The Poultry Water Quality Consortium and others within the academic and poultry industry were contacted during this evaluation and their general conclusion is that this technology will work. The Poultry Water Quality Consortium indicated that there is no question that this type of system will work but that there are a lot of questions about costs and what happens to by-products related to this specific proposal.
EPA reviewers, as well as many others, expressed serious concerns about mixing waste streams and other concerns about odors, phosphorous, mixing metals with compost, operational demands of anaerobic thermophilic digesters and sequencing batch reactors, contingency plans and staffing. They indicated that there are a series of technical questions that should be addressed early in the planning process. For example, EPA reviewers questioned whether the technology proposed would be suitable for changing waste streams—if there is a significant wet-weather flow, or digester downtime.
EPA Region III also expressed concern about the feasibility of the facility, and did not feel that the project is ready to go to design.
Taylor & Thomas indicated that this Phase III facility plan is based on preliminary engineering design, and that a treatability study of the intermediate process effluent must be completed in the next stage of engineering before the design capacity of the Sequencing Batch Reactor (SBR) system can be finalized. The SBR system represents a very insignificant portion of the total project cost and its design can be significantly modified with little impact on the project economics.
The group agreed that this a first generation technology within the U.S. and that successful examples of this technology are being used in Europe using different waste streams. Brief information on other efforts, provided at the request of the group by Taylor & Thomas Environmental Inc., is included in the appendix.
The State of WV and Taylor & Thomas reviewers emphasized that the technology demonstrations by the WV Department of Agriculture have verified that this treatment strategy is technically viable. The proposed facility has incorporated five years of experience gained from the POWER thermophillic anaerobic digestion technology project in Moorefield, WV. Their research has also included the experience of similar existing digestion systems in Western Europe and the Gent facility in Belgium which treats a mixture of municipal sewage and hog waste successfully.
WV and Taylor & Thomas stressed that the simultaneous treatment of the mixed stream offers an opportunity to profitably replace the unsatisfactorily performing, wastewater treatment lagoons at the Town of Franklin with a facility that meets the forecasted needs of the town for the next twenty years; while at the same time mitigating the potentially detrimental environmental impact created by the local poultry industry.
They also stressed that the project offers an opportunity to provide 25-30 new jobs in Pendleton County.
Other Alternatives
EPA reviewers suggested that facility design consider other technologies to manage these waste streams. EPA and Poultry Water Quality Consortium reviewers said that we may be missing an opportunity to look broader and more effectively in the way we use the funds that are proposed for this facility.
Research for this evaluation included looking at other alternatives for managing poultry by-products. The Poultry Water Quality Consortium has produced a “Poultry Water Quality Handbook” which seeks to consolidate information, ideas and references to enhance water quality. State Universities, Research Scientists and USDA Agricultural Research Scientists generated the handbook. The techniques and technologies included in the handbook have gone through a review process and are considered “best management practices” by the governments and industries participating in the Consortium.
A variety of alternatives are identified in the handbook for managing poultry waste and mortality. However, thermophilic anaerobic poultry digestion systems have not been researched or reviewed by the Consortium and are not included, or endorsed, in the handbook.
Of the various alternatives that may be considered by Pendleton County, land application seems to be a preference with some reviewers. EPA and Poultry Water Quality Consortium reviewers expressed concern that the disadvantages of land application have been significantly over estimated. EPA and the Consortium believe that the best management practice for poultry mortalities are on-site composting, not digestion.
EPA reviewers expressed concern that there hasn’t been an analysis of handling each of the waste streams individually (i.e. poultry litter, mortality, municipal wastewater). Taylor & Thomas clarified that the watersheds, which are the focus of this project, are where 60% of the poultry operations are located. The Potomac Valley Soil and Water Conservation District report cited in the proposal indicates that the watersheds where more than 2 tons of litter was produced per acre of treatable agriculture land would be a concern. Pendleton County reportedly has .67 tons per acre being produced now. Based on these figures, EPA and Consortium reviewers feel that relocation or transport of the litter outside of the area needs evaluation.
V. Conclusions:
Pendleton County’s Economic & Community Development
Authority should be applauded for their initiative and foresight in trying to bring new technology into the State, and for applying it to serious environmental issues being experienced in Potomac Highlands. Pendleton County’s initiative was in response to State of West Virginia and National initiatives, by Congress, USDA , EPA, and the WV Department of Agriculture about the handling of animal waste and the need locally to achieve environmental and economic quality in the region. It also was in response to, and endorsed by, the President’s Executive Order on American Heritage Rivers Initiative. Community-based efforts such as this effort should be supported, as indicated by Executive Order 13061, with financial, technical and information assistance within existing programs.
The State Department of Agriculture is supportive
of the Pendleton County project as well as other applications of the POWER technology to address the more effective management of poultry by-products in West Virginia. The State believes that the Moorefield Project and the experiences of European anaerobic digesters have proven the technology.
Discussions with professionals indicate that there is agreement that anaerobic digestion systems will work. However, there is disagreement as to whether this proposal is supportable as proposed. The State of WV Department of Agriculture believes that the technology is one alternative to dealing with poultry waste by-products in an environmentally responsible manner. The other reviewers are not willing to recommend, or endorse, this project as proposed until formal research and analysis by an accredited Land Grant University or Agricultural Research Service has occurred.
3. There is no agreement between the reviewers on the proposal to include a mix of human and poultry waste and mortalities. The disagreement seems to revolve around the lack of consideration of other alternatives for treating the municipal and poultry wastes, the preliminary nature of the project design cost and understanding of the operational requirements.
It may be useful to consider the following actions to
address comments and fulfills existing commitments to support Pendleton County’s efforts. Please note that these suggestions do not reflect a consensus agreement among the interests participating in this evaluation.
The State of WV Department of Agriculture or Pendleton
County could request an accredited Land Grant University Program or Agricultural Research Service (ARS), from WV or elsewhere, to research this technology and proposal to determine whether it is an alternative endorsed by industry, agricultural and environmental protection interests for the management of poultry by-products. Such a review could prove useful in decision-making for the Pendleton County facility as well as others proposals within WV and nationwide.
EPA and USDA could reaffirm their commitment to
American Heritage Rivers and the Pendleton County project by offering to provide federal financial and technical assistance to conduct the Land Grant or Agricultural Research Service research and evaluation.
The State of WV Department of Agriculture and Pendleton
County could arrange for the involved agencies and organizations to visit the Moorefield, WV POWER Project; and/ or investigate assistance through a private foundation or government program to arrange for a trip to Western Europe and Belgium for agency representatives and local leaders to further research this technology.
VI. For Further Information: For additional information on this draft evaluation contact Glenn Eugster, Assistant Regional Director, Partnerships, National Park Service, National Capital Region, 1100 Ohio Drive, SW, Washington, DC 20242. By telephone call (202)619-7492. By telefax (202)401-0017. By e-mail: glenn_eugster@nps.gov.
No comments:
Post a Comment