-------
Total Annual Costs
Based on best professional judgement, it is assumed that annual operating and
maintenance costs are 5 percent of the total capital costs.
Annual Cost = 0.05 * (Capital Cost)
5.2.4
Results
Appendix A, Table A-2 presents the cost model results for constructing a concrete
gravity settling basin.
5.3
Berr
Beef feedlots, daMesIheifer, and'swine and dry poultry operations use berms to
contain stormwater runoff and process water that fall within the animal handling and feeding areas
and to divert clean stormwater that falls outside these areas. Because the handling and feeding
areas contain manure, runoff from these areas needs to be contained and diverted to a waste
management storage facility (e.g., a lagoon or a pond); Berms-surrounding the handling and
feeding area act as a physical barrier between the containment area and adjacent "clean" land.
Berms are costed for all beef feedlots, heifer operations, and dairies for all regulatory options, but
not costed for veal operations because they are assumed to be indoor operations.
Stormwater is diverted around poultry and swine storage structures by
constructing berms on two adjacent sides up-gradient from the storage facility or lagoon. Berms
are not included in the cost analysis for swine operations with pit systems.
5.3.1
Technology Description
Berms are earthen structures that divert clean runoff away from pollutant sources
and channel runoff that falls within the area containing pollutant sources. Runoff that falls within
5-18
-------
the containment area at beef and dairy operations may become contaminated from contact with
animal feed and fecal matter deposited in the feedlot or handling area. This runoff is channeled by
the berms to a waste management storage facility (e.g., a pond or lagoon).
5.3.2
Design
The design of a berm system for a specific operation depends on the size of the
outdoor feedlot area, lagoon, or dry waste storage area. The feedlot area is dependent upon the
number of animals contained on drylots at the facility.
Beef Feedlots and Dairies
The cost model assumes for beef feedlots and dairies that berms are constructed as
a 3-foot-high, 6-foot-wide compacted soil mound that surrounds the feedlot and animal handling
areas. EPA assumes the feed storage area is part of the animal handling areas. Figure 5.3.2-1
depicts the cross-section of the berm assumed for this cost model.
Figure 5.3.2-1. Cross-Section of Berm
The area of the cross-section of the berm is calculated using the following
equation:
5-19
-------
Area. =%xbxh
where:
b
h
Base width (6 feet)
Total height (3 feet).
The total length of the berm system for beef feedlots and dairies varies according
to the size of the feedlot area. The area required for each animal varies by animal type, because
different sized animals require a different amount of space. Table 5.3.2-1 provides the
recommended area per animal for a drylot, not including handling and storage areas. The beef
and dairy costmodel calculated the average area per animal on a drylot using the ranges presented
in Table 5.3.2-1, and added 15 percent for handling areas (AEA, 1999).
Table 5.3.2-1
Space Requirements Assumed for Animals Housed on Drylots3
Animal Type
Beef cattle
Mature dairy cows
Heifers
Drylot Area
(ft2 /animal)
400
400
375
225
Handling Area
(ftVanimal)
60
60
56
34
Total Area
(fi?/animai)
460
460
431
259
•Source: MWPS, 1993; AEA, 1999
The total perimeter of the berm is calculated as follows:
where:
Head
L = 4 x
x Head)1
,0,5
Total perimeter (length of four sides of a square area) (feet)
Total area of drylot and handling areas per animal (ft2)
(Table 5.3.2-1 value)
Average Head (Table 4.3.1-1 value).
5-20
-------
Table 5.3.2-2 summarizes the perimeters of the berm calculated for all model
farms. Note that the berm design does not vary by region or regulatory option.
Swine and Poultry Operations
For swine and poultry operations, berms were constructed in accordance with the
standards of the American Society of Agricultural Engineers (ASAE, 1998). ASAE specifies a
berm with a 1-foot top width, a height of 3 feet, and a 2:1 side slope. Assuming a trapezoidal
shape, the berm cross-sectional area is determined by:
bermtop
)
where:
w,
w,
bermbot"
bermtop"
height of berm
width of berm bottom
width of berm top.
Table 5.3.2-2
Berm Perimeter by Beef and Dairy Model Farm for All Regulatory Options
Animal Type
Beef
Heifers
Dairy (Heifers and Calves)
.-.••/>. . Size Class •'''-•• •-, • -
Medium 1
Medium 2
Medium 3
Large 1
Large 2
Medium 1
Medium 2
Medium 3
Large 1
Medium 1
Medium 2
Medium 3
Large 1
Benfl Perimeter (ft) =
1,650
2,016
2,374
3,679
13,806
1,661
2,077
2,457
3,217
910
1,186
1,410
2,176
5-21
-------
With a side slope of 2:1 (H:V), a height of 3 feet (HberJ, and a top width of 1 foot
), the bottom width (Wbermb-ot) is 13 feet, and the cross-sectional area (AreabeiJ is 21
square feet. The cross-sectional area is then multiplied by berm length (L^™) to obtain cubic
yardage for construction. Berm length is determined by the dimensions of the solid or liquid
storage structure.
For solid poultry waste, the berm length is calculated from .the dimensions of ithe
litter storage shed (see 5.14). Shed width is assumed to be 68 feet and shed length is the same as
the length of the litter stack. For liquid storage systems, lagoons or evaporative ponds, berm
length is determined after a subroutine is executed to determine the lagoon or evaporative pond
dimensions (see 5.4.5). Lagoons and evaporative ponds are assumed to be square, and berm
length is calculated from the top width of these structures.
The two.adjoining berms for swine and poultry operations are designed to extend
10 feet beyond each of two adjacent sides of the storage structure.. The berms meet to form a
corner, but since the berms are 13 feet wide at the base, there is substantial overlap at the corner.
Based on a mathematical analysis of the extent of this overlap, it was determined that berm length
should be calculated in the following manner to adjust for the overlap:
For lagoons and evaporative ponds:
For solid storage structures:
where:
W =
"lagoontop
ok
320
(2 * W,agoontop + 30)
= (Volumeslack/320 + 98)
Width of top of lagoon or evaporative pond
Volume of litter stack
The cross-sectional area of the litter stack.
A more detailed discussion of berm and other calculations used for swine and
poultry operations can be found in Swine and Poultry Cost Model QA/QC Report (Terra Tech,
2002).
5-22
-------
5.3.3
Costs
To construct the berm, the volume of material to construct the berm is excavated
along the perimeter of the containment area. The excavated soil is mounded to form the berm and
the soil is compacted. Table 5.3.3-1 presents unit costs for constructing the berm. A fixed earth
moving cost of $2.60 per cubic yard was used in the calculation of similar expenses for berms at
swine and poultry operations.
Table 5.3.3-1
Unit Costs for Constructing Berms
Unit ''-•'-:''•'[
Compaction
Excavation
Cost
(1997 Dollars)
$0.41/yd3
$2.02/yd3
v f *° ^ *
Source"
Means, 1996 (022 226 5720)
Means, 1999 (022 238 0200)
inlormation taken from Means Construction Data. The numbers in parentheses refer to the division number and line number.
Different years were selected for the different components based on consultation with industry experts and best professional
judgement.
The total volume of the berm for beef feedlots and dairies is calculated using the
following equation:
where:
Volume ben^ysten, = Area ^ x L x 1.25 x 1.05
Area berm = Cross-sectional area of berm (square feet)
L = Total length of berm around containment area (feet)
1 -25 = Factor accounting for volumetric expansion on soil for
cut/fill (AEA, 1999)
1-05 = Factor accounting for 5% settling after compaction.
Compact Cost =
$0.41 / yd3 x Volume
27 ft3./yd3
_ . _,. $2.02 / yd3 x Volume
Excavation Cost = —
27 ft/yd3
5-23
-------
The volume of berms for swine and poultry operations is calculated using the following equation:
Volume^™ = Areaberm
With a cross-sectional area of 21 square feet, berm volume is:
Volumebemi = 21 *
Total Capital Cost
The total capital cost for beef feedlots and dairies, therefore, is $2.43 per cubic
yard of berm. To convert this cost to a cost per foot, the volume is divided by the berm area,
taking into account the factors for expansion and settling as follows:
$2.43/yd3 x % x 6 x 3 x 1.25 x 1.05_
Capital Cost = Cost / Linear Foot = 27ft3/ d3 ~
The cost of $1.41 per linear foot of berm is the cost included in the cost model.
A fixed earth moving cost of $2.60 per cubic yard was used to calculate the cost of
berms for swine and poultry operations. This fixed cost was multiplied by the berm volume to
determine total capital cost using the following equation:
Capital Cost = Volume^ 727 x 2.60
where the 27 converts volume from cubic feet to cubic yards.
5-24
-------
Total Annual Costs -
Based on best professional judgement, the total annual cost for berm maintenance
is estimated at 2 percent of the total capital costs for all animal types.
. . Annual Cost = 0.02 x (Capital Cost)
5.3.4
Results
Appendix A, Table A-3 presents the cost model results for constructing and
maintaining berais.
5.4
Lagoons
Anaerobic lagoons are used at dairies and veal, wet layer, and swine operations to
collect process water and flush water, which contain manure waste. Anaerobic microbiological
processes promote decomposition, thus providing treatment for wastes with high biochemical
oxygen demand (BOD), such as animal waste. Manure, process water, and runoff are routed to
the lagoon where the mixture undergoes treatment. New lagoons also provide storage capacity
until the waste can be applied to cropland as fertilizer or irrigation water, or be transported off
site. Section 5.9 discusses the costs associated with transporting waste off site, including solids
and liquids.
Lagoons are included in all options for dairies and veal operations, except Option 6
which replaces the lagoon with an anaerobic digester and a pond for large dairies. Options 1, 2,
4, 5 A, and 6 require zero discharge of manure, litter, or process wastewater pollutants from the
production area with the exception of overflows from a facility designed to hold all process
wastewater, including the direct precipitation and runoff from a 25-year, 24-hour rainfall event.
CAFOs that already have storage in place are assumed to have sufficient capacity. Under Options
1, 2, and 4, CAFOs that have no storage on site are costed for the installation of naturally lined
lagoons with 180 days of storage. Under Option 7, CAFOs are costed for the installation of
5-25
-------
naturally lined lagoons with a storage capacity that varies based on land application timing
restrictions. For Options 3A/3B and 3C/3D, CAFOs expected to have a direct hydrologic
connection from ground water to surface water are costed for the installation of anaerobic
lagoons with an artificial liner to prevent seepage of wastewater into ground water.
Lagoons are assumed as part of the baseline scenario for wet layer operations and
some swine operations with liquid-based systems. Other swine operations have pit storage or
evaporative pond systems under baseline conditions, and all other poultry operations have solid-
based manure management systems. Thus, lagoon construction is generally not included as a cost
for swine and poultry operations, with five exceptions. Under Option 1 A, increased storage is
provided to handle chronic rainfall at wet layer operations and at swine operations with liquid or
evaporative pond systems. Increased storage is provided for all swine facilities under Option 7,
and secondary lagoons are included as part of the cost to recycle flush water at Category 2 liquid
swine operations for all but Option 5. The cost model also includes construction of new, lined
and covered anaerobic lagoons under Option 5 for swine operations currently using evaporative
ponds. This alternative is less expensive than covering the evaporative ponds. In addition,
secondary lagoons with storage for 20 days are constructed hi conjunction with liner installation
for liquid and evaporative pond systems.
5.4.1
Technology Description
Anaerobic lagoons provide storage for animal wastes while decomposing and
liquefying manure solids. Anaerobic processes degrade high biochemical oxygen demand (BOD)
wastes into stable end products without the use of free oxygen. Nondegradable solids settle to
the bottom as sludge, which is periodically removed. The liquid is applied to on-site cropland as
fertilizer or irrigation water, or it is transported off site. The sludge can also be land applied as a
fertilizer and soil amendment. Anaerobic lagoons can handle high pollutant loading rates while
minimizing manure odors. Properly managed lagoons have a musty odor.
5-26
-------
Lagoons reduce the concentrations of both nitrogen and phosphorus in the liquid
effluent. Phosphorus settles to the bottom of the lagoon and is removed with the lagoon sludge.
Influent nitrogen is reduced through volatilization to ammonia.
; Anaerobic lagoons are typically at least 6 to 10 feet in depth, although 8 to 20 foot
depths are not unusual. Deeper lagoons typically have a smaller surface area to depth ratio, allow
less area for volatilization, provide a more thorough mixing of lagoon contents by rising gas
bubbles, and minimize odors.
Anaerobic lagoons offer several advantages over other methods of storage and
treatment. Anaerobic lagoons can handle high loading rates and provide a large volume for long-
term storage of liquid wastes. Lagoons treat the manure by reducing nitrogen and phosphorus in
the effluent and allow manure to be handled as a liquid. Lagoons are typically located at a lower
elevation than the animal barns; gravity is used to transport the waste to the lagoon, which
minimizes labor. -
Anaerobic lagoons are appropriate for use at operations that collect high BOD
waste, such as milking parlor flush or hose water and flush bam water. Typically, dairies and veal
operations operate in this manner and have lagoons for wastewater storage. The cost model
assumes all dairies and veal operations use anaerobic lagoons, some swine and poultry operations
require a lagoon, and beef feedlot and heifer operations use a storage pond (discussed in Section
5.5). The cost model also assumes that swine operations use either pit (Mid-Atlantic and
Midwest regions), anaerobic lagoon (Mid-Atlantic and Midwest regions), or evaporative pond
systems (Central region), while all wet layer operations use anaerobic lagoons. Broiler, turkey,
and dry layer operations are assumed to not use anaerobic lagoons.
Based on site visits, EPA assumes all veal operations have sufficient storage, such
as lagoons, currently in place. However, not all dairies are expected to have liquid storage
currently in place. In addition, naturally lined lagoons are more prevalent at dairies and veal
operations than synthetically lined lagoons. Section 6 provides EPA's estimates of the percentage
of dairies and veal operations that would require the installation of a lagoon, a lagoon with a liner
5-27
-------
(for Options 3A/3B and 3C/3D), or a lagoon with additional capacity under Option 7. Also
contained in Section 6.0 are EPA's estimates of the percentage of swine and wet layer operations
that would require increased storage under Option 1A, liners under Options 3B and 3C, and
increased storage for swine facilities under Option 7.
5.4.2
Design of Anaerobic Lagoons at Dairies and Veal Operations
The design of anaerobic lagoons for dairies and veal operations is described below.
Considerations specific to the design of anaerobic lagoons and evaporative ponds for swine and
poultry operations are discussed in Section 5.4.5.
Anaerobic lagoons are designed based on volatile solids loading rates (VSLR).
Volatile solids represent the amount of wastes that will decompose. The cost model assumes the
lagoon receives runoff directly from the calf and heifer drylots, wastewater from the barns,
wastewater from the parlor, and manure from the parlor and flush barns. The manure supplies the
volatile solids into the lagoon. Lagoons are typically constructed by excavating a pit and building
berms around the perimeter. The berms are constructed with an extra 5 percent in height to allow
for settling. The sides of the lagoon are typically sloped with a 2:1 or 3:1 (horizontahvertical)
ratio.
Considerations are also made to avoid ground water and soil contamination.
Options 1, 2,4, 5, 5 A, and 7 assume the bottom and sides of the lagoon are constructed of soil
that is at least 10 percent clay compacted with a sheepsfoot roller. Options 3A/3B and 3C/3D
require additional ground water protection; therefore, CAFOs that are located in areas of high risk
for ground-water contamination have costs for installation of an synthetic liner over a compacted
clay liner.
Lagoons are designed using the following steps:
5-28
-------
1) Determine the necessary storage volume of the lagoon. Lagoons are
designed to contain the following volumes (see Figure 5.4.2-1):
— Sludge Volume: Volume of accumulated sludge between cleanouts
(depends on the type and amount of animal waste),
— Minimum Treatment Volume: Volume necessary to allow anaerobic
decomposition to occur,
• • • " — Manure and Wastewater: Milk parlor and flush barn waste water
and manure and runoff from drylots,
— Net Precipitation: Annual precipitation minus the annual'
evaporation,
— Design Storm: The depth of the peak (e.g., 25-year, 24-hour)
.rainfall event,
— Freeboard: A minimum of one foot of freeboard, and
— Dilution volume (for swine and poultry operations).
2) Determine the dimensions of the lagoon, given the required storage volume
depending on the regulatory option.
3) Determine the costs for constructing the lagoon, using the dimensions
calculated in Step 2.
Freeboard
Depth of runoff from a 25-year, 24-hour storm event
Depth of normal precipitation less evaporation
Manure and wastewater volume (including runoff)
Minimum treatment volume
Sludge volume
Source: Agricultural Waste Handbook, USDA, 1996.
Figure 5.4.2-1. Cross-Section of an Anaerobic Lagoon
5-29
-------
Step 1) Determination of Lagoon Volume
The lagoon volume is determined by the following equation:
Pond Volume = Sludge Volume + Minimum Treatment Volume + Manure and Wastewater
+ Runoff + Net Precipitation + Design Storm + Freeboard
The determination of each volume is discussed below.
Sludge Volume
The amount of sludge that accumulates between lagoon cleanouts varies based on
the type and amount of animal waste. As manure decomposes in the lagoon, portions of the total
solids do not decompose. A layer of sludge accumulates on the floor of the lagoon, which is
proportional to the quantity of total solids that enter the lagoon. The sludge accumulation period
is equal to the storage retention time of the lagoon. The rate of sludge accumulation is 0.0729
fWlb solids for dairy cattle (USDA NRCS, 1996). The calculation of the separator solids is based
on a 50 percent settling rate. The calculation of the runoff solids is discussed in Section 4.7.
where:
Sludge Volume = Sludge Accumulation x (Separator Solids + Runoff Solids)
Sludge Volume
Sludge Accumulation
Separator Solids
Runoff Solids
Volume of accumulated sludge in the lagoon
between cleanouts (depends on the type and amount
of animal waste), ft3
0.0729 fWlb
Amount of solids entering the lagoon from the-
separator, Ib
Amount of solids entering the lagoon from runoff,
Ib.
5-30
-------
Minimum Treatment Volume (MTV)
The minimum treatment volume is the minimum volume of the lagoon to insure
anaerobic treatment for a given volatile solids loading. The minimum treatment volume is based
on the volatile solids loading rate (VSLR), which varies with regional temperature. The minimum
treatment volume is calculated using the influent daily volatile solids loading from all sources, and
a regional volatile solids loading rate per 1,000 ft3. The influent daily volatile solids loadings is
calculated using the'manure volatile solids and settling basin efficiency. The quantity of volatile
solids (VS) entering the lagoon is calculated using the following equation:
where:
Influent VS = Manure VS - (Manures VS x Settling Basin Efficiency)
Influent VS
Manure VS
Settling Basin Efficiency
Daily volatile solids loading from all sources
entering the lagoon, Ibs/day
Volatile solids excreted as part of the
manure, Ibs/day (see Technical Development
Document for manure characteristics)
0.50 (i.e., percent of solids that settled in the
settling basin).
Therefore, the minimum treatment volume is calculated as follows:
where:
MTV
Influent VS
VSLR
MTV =
Influent VS
VSLR
Minimum treatment volume (i.e., minimum volume
required for treatment to occur in the lagoon), ft3
Daily volatile solids loading from all sources
entering the lagoon, Ibs/day
Volatile solids loading rate, Ib VS/1000 ftVday.
The VSLR varies by region, as shown in Figure 5.4.2-2, because the rate of solids decomposition
in anaerobic lagoons is a function of temperature (USDA NRCS, 1996).
5-31.
-------
Manure and Wastewater Volume
Lagoons are designed to store manure and wastewater that is generated over a
specific period of time, typically '90 to 365 days. For all options except Option 7, the storage
period used in the cost model is 180 days.
5-32
-------
a1
1
5-33
-------
All of the manure and wastewater that is flushed or hosed from the dairy parlor or
bam is washed to a concrete settling basin (or separator) before it enters the lagoon (see Section
5.2). To calculate the influent to the lagoon over the storage .period, the daily effluent from the
separator is multiplied by the number of days of storage required. It is assumed that the barn flush
water is recycled back to the barns from the lagoon; therefore, only one storage volume of bam
flush water is added to the total influent over the whole storage period. It is assumed that the
settling basin has a 50-percent solids removal efficiency, and the removed solids have a moisture
content of 80 percent (based on best professional-judgement). The following equations are used
to calculate the influent to the lagoon: .
Lagoon Influent = (Parlor Wash + Bam Wash + Manure Water) x Storage Days
where:
Lagoon Influent
Parlor Wash
Bam Wash
Manure Water
Storage Days
Effluent from the separator entering the lagoon,
gallons, gal
Wastewater that is flushed or hosed from the parlor,
gallons per day, gpd
Wastewater that is flushed or hosed from the barn,
The portion of manure that enters the lagoon that is
not solid, gpd
Retention time of the lagoon (varies by option).
See Section 4.5 for more information regarding calculating the parlor wash and bam wash and
Section 4.6 for manure water.
Recycled Barn Water = Barn Wash * (Storage Days - 1)
where:
Recycled Barn Water =
Bam Wash =
Storage Days =
Wastewater recycled from the lagoon to use as barn
flush water, gpd
Wastewater that is flushed or hosed from the barn,
Retention time of the lagoon (varies by option).
5-34
-------
Lagoon Storage = [(Parlor Wash + Bam Wash + Manure Water) x Storage Days] - Recycled Barn Water
where:
Lagoon Storage =
Parlor Wash " =
Barn Wash =
Manure Water =
Storage Days -- =-
Recycled Barn Water ..=
Separator wastewater entering the lagoon for
.„_. ^storage, ga]L_
Wastewater that Is flushed or hosed from the parlor,
..' gpd r . . ...
Wastewater that is flushed or hosed from the bam,
gpd
The portion of manure that enters the lagoon that is
not solid;"gpd~
Retention time of the lagoon (varies by option).
_. Wastewater recycled from the lagoon to use as barn
flush water, gpd.
where:
Lagoon Solids = Manure Solids - (Manure Solids x Separator Efficiency)
Lagoon Solids =
Manure Solids - -—
Separator Efficiency =
Solids entering the lagoon from the separator, ft3
Manure solids entering the separator, ft3
0.50 (i.e., percent of solids that settled in the
separator).
Net Precipitation
The lagoon depth is increased to allow for the six-month precipitation minus the
six-month evaporation, as discussed in Section 4.7, The net precipitation contribution to the
lagoon depth is equal to the average precipitation minus the average evaporation.
Design Storm
The depth of the peak storm event is added to the depth of the lagoon. For all
options except Option 1A, this peak rainfall event is the 25-year, 24-hour rainfall. For Option 1 A,
a sensitivity analysis done by EPA to account for chronic rainfall, the peak storm is defined as the
25-year, 24-hour rainfall plus the 10-year, 10-day rainfall (see Section 8.0).
5-35
-------
Peak Precipitation = 25-year, 24-hour Rainfall or 25-year, 24-hour + 10-year, 10-day Rainfall
where:
Peak Precipitation
25-Yr, 24-Hr Rainfall
10-Yr, 10-Day Rainfall
Precipitation depth that falls directly on the
lagoon from the peak rainfall event, inches
Depth of the 25-year, 24-hour peak rainfall
(used for Option 1 through 7), inches
Depth of the 10-year, 10-day chronic rainfall
(used for Option 1A), niches.
Freeboard
A minimum of one foot of freeboard is added to the depth.
Runoff
The amount of runoff from the drylot entering the lagoon is determined from the
net precipitation and area of the drylot, as discussed in Section 4.7. The amount of runoff is
determined by estimating the precipitation for the number of days of storage assumed for each
option. New lagoons are costed under Options 1 through 6 for 180 days of storage. Option 7
storage requirements are presented in Table 5.4.2-1. In addition, the runoff contribution to the
lagoon is reduced by the amount of water retained by the solids that settle out in the basin. The
solids entering the lagoon are 1.5 percent of the total runoff from the drylot (MWPS, 1993). The
peak storm runoff is also included in the storage requirements. Section 4.7 describes the details
of the precipitation and runoff calculations.
5-36
-------
Table 5.4.2-1
Lagoon Storage Capacities at Dairies for Option 7
Region
Central
Mid-Atlantic
Midwest
Pacific
South
Estimated Storage-
Capacity for
Option 7 (days)
180
225
225
135
45
Estimated Existing
Storage Capacity
(days)
60 .
30
90
30
30
Additional Lagoon
Capac% Costed !br ; v
Existing Ponds (days) ; r
120
195
135
105
where:
Influent Runoff Solids^^ = Runoff^^ x % Runoff Solids
Influent Runoff Solids,
Run°ff6-month
% Runoff Solids
'6-month
Amount of solids entering the lagoon from
the drylot (i.e., solids exiting the settling
basin), ft3
Amount of the total runoff entering the
lagoon from the drylot, ft3
1.5% (i.e., the percent of runoff entering the
lagoon that consists of solids).
Step 2) Dimensions and Configuration of the Lagoon
The lagoon is designed in the shape of an inverted pyramid with a flat bottom,
containing the required volume. The depth of the lagoon is set as follows:
where:
h = Initial Depth + Net Precipitation + Freeboard
h = Depth of the lagoon, ft
Initial Depth = 10 ft
5-37
-------
Net Precipitation
Freeboard
Six-month precipitation depth that falls directly on
the pond minus the amount that evaporates from the
pond, ft
1ft.
For dairies and veal operations, the initial depth of the lagoon is set at 10 feet,
based on discussions with industry consultants. This initial depth is assumed to include depth for
the runoff and solids. This depth is used as the starting value for the dimensions calculations
using the required volume of the lagoon. The lagoon is assumed to be square, and the final depth
and length is solved by iteration, knowing the lagoon volume and the other variables in the
equation. ' r ••
Lagoon Excavation and Embankment Volumes
Lagoons are constructed by excavating a portion of the necessary volume and
building embankments around the perimeter of the lagoon to make up the total design volume.
The cost model performs an iteration to maximize the use of excavated material used in
itructing the embankments that minimizes the costs for construction. The excavation volume
cons'
is represented by the following equation:
where:
W
= C, (h-he) [lbwb + lsws + (lbwblswsH
Total volume of soil extracted from the lagoon, ft3
constant equaling Yz for dairy cost model
Depth of the lagoon, ft
Height of embankment, ft
Length of the base of the lagoon, ft
Width of the base of the lagoon, ft
Length of the top of the lagoon, ft
Width of the top of the lagoon, ft.
The excavated soil is used to build the embankments. Because some settling of the soil will
occur, it is assumed that an extra 5 percent of volume is required. The embankment volume is
represented by the following equation:
5-38
-------
Vplumeembankmcnt = 2 [(1.05 hcwe + s (1.05 h,)2) (lb +2 sh)] + 2 [(1.05 hewe + (1.05 s)2 he2) (w + 2sh)]
where:
Volumeembankment Total volume of soil used for the embankment, ft3
he = Height of embankment, ft
we -.=.-' Width of embankment, ft
= Length of the base of the lagoon, ft
= Slope of sidewalls
= Width of the floor of lagoon.
S
W
The dimensions of the basin which yield the desired volume are calculated by the cost model using
these equations.
i' ' „. - • • r- • ,...'. 1 -
" ' ' ' ' t-\ r ' * '• •
Lagoon Liners
For Options 3A/3B and 3C/3D, lagoons are designed with a synthetic liner for
those operations located in areas requiring ground water protection. The costs assume that clay is
brought on site in a truck (locally) and applied as a slurry to the lagoon.basin. The liner system
consists of clay soil with a synthetic liner cover. The dimensions are equal to the surface area of
the floor and sides of the lagoon.
The surface area of the floor of the lagoon is calculated to determine the area for
compaction and for the lagoonliner. The surface area includes the bottom area plus the area of
the four trapezoids that make up the sides of the lagoon.
a trapezoid.
The surface area of the sloped sides is calculated using the formula for the area of
Area of Side, = '/2 HS x (lb + is)
Area of Sidew = 1A HS x (Wb + wj
5-39
-------
where:
Area of Side,
Area of Sidew
HS
w
, Area of length side of the lagoon, fi2
Area of width side of the lagoon, ft2
u,. ^Height of the side on file lagoon (see equation below), ft
Bottom length of the lagoon, ft
Top length of the lagoon, ft
Bottom width of the lagoon; it — '-
-Top width of the lagoonr.ft. - -
The height of the side is'calculated using the Pythagorean Theorem.
where:
HS =
h
(4h)2)°
Height of the side on the lagoon, ft
Depth of the lagoon, ft.
The total surface area of the basin is:
where:
Surface Area,MOOn = lb Wb + 2 [Area of Side,] + 2 [Area of Si'deJ
Surface Arealagoon
!„
wb
Area of Side,
Area of Sidew
Total surface area of the pond floor, including the
bottom and sides, ft2
Bottom length of the pond, ft
Bottom width of the pond, ft
Area of length side of the pond, ft2
Area of width side of the pond, ft2.
5.4.3
Costs for Constructing a Dairy Lagoon
The construction of the storage lagoon includes a mobilization fee for the heavy
machinery, excavation of the lagoon area, compaction of the ground and walls of the lagoon, and
the construction of conveyances to direct runoff from the drylot area to the storage lagoon. Table
5.4.3-1 presents the unit costs used to calculate the capital and annual cost for constructing the
storage lagoon.
5-40
-------
Table 5.4.3-1
Unit Costs for Storage Lagoon
Unit
Mobilization
Excavation
Compaction
Flush Wash Conveyance ,
Hose Wash Conveyance
Clay Liner (shipped & installed)
Synthetic Liner (installed)
information takftn frnm N/fpnnb fonts*
1
-Cost"*"^ ' :
(1997 dollars)
$205/event
$2.02/yd3
$0.41/yd3
$ll,025/system
$7,644/system
$0.24/ft2
$1.50/ft2
=======================^==========,
Source
Means 1999 (022 274 0020)a
Means 1 999 (022 238 0200)a
Means 1996 (022 226 :5720)a
ERG, 2000c.
ERG,2000c ...
AEA, 1999
Tetra Tech, 200Qc
numbers.
The calculations for the cost associated with these items are shown below.
Mobilization
The mobilization costs are for transporting the heavy machinery and equipment.
The Means Construction Data reports that this cost is $205/event.
Excavation
To calculate the lagoon excavation costs, the volume of material that is excavated
is first calculated, as described previously. The excavated material is expected to be used to
construct embankments around the lagoon, which will provide additional storage other than that
volume which is excavated; therefore, the excavated volume is not equal to the lagoon volume.
Instead, it is equal to the pond volume minus the storage that the embankments provide.
The excavation cost is calculated with the following equation:
Excavation = Cost x Volumeexcaval=d - Conversion Factor
5-41
-------
where:
Excavation
Cost
Conversion Factor =
Total cost to excavate the lagoon, $
$2.02/yd3 (i.e., cost per the volume of soil
excavated)
Amount (volume) of soil excavated, ft3
27 ft3/yd3 (conversion from ft3 to yd3).
Compaction
To calculate compaction costs, the volume for compaction is calculated, as
described in Section 5.1.3. The compaction cost is calculated using the following equation:
where:
Compaction = Cost x Volumecompacled (ft3) - Conversion Factor
Compaction
Cost
Conversion Factor =
Total cost to compact the lagoon, $
$0.41/yd3 (i.e., cost per volume of soil compacted)
Amount (volume) of soil compacted, ft3
27 ftVyd3 (conversion from ft3 to yd3).
Conveyance
The conveyance costs are for constructing conveyances to direct runoff from the
drylot area to the lagoon. According to the Means Construction Data, this cost is $11,025/system
for flush wash conveyance and $7,644/system for hose wash conveyance.
Clay and Synthetic Liners
To calculate liner costs, the surface area of the basin flow and sidewalls is
calculated, as described previously. The liner cost includes both clay and synthetic liners, and is
calculated using the following equations:
5-42
-------
where:
Glay Liner
Cost
Surface Area
Clay Liner = Cost x Surface Area
,C6st to install a clay liner, $
$Q.24/ft? (i.e., post per the surface area of the pond)
Surface area of the basin floor and the sidewalls, ft2.
where:
Synthetic Liner
Cost
Surface Area
Synthetic Liner = Cost x Surface Area
<-Cost to install a synthetic liner, $
$1.SO/ft2 (i.e., cost per the surface area of the pond)
Surface area of the basin floor and the sidewalls, ft2.
following:
following:
Total Capital Costs
The total capital cost for construction of the naturally lined storage lagoon is the
Capital Cost = Mobilization + Excavation + Compaction + Conveyance
The total capital cost for construction of the synthetically lined lagoon is the
Capital Cost = Mobilization + Excavation + Compaction + Conveyance +
Clay Liner + Synthetic Liner
Total Annual Costs
Based on best professional judgement, annual operating and maintenance costs for
both naturally lined and synthetically lined lagoons are estimated at 5 percent of the capital costs.
Annual Cost = 5% x Capital Cost
5-43
-------
5.4.4
Dairy Lagoon Results
The cost model results for constructing a naturally lined lagoon, a synthetically
lined lagoon, and additional lagoons'for extra capacity (Option 7) at dairies are presented in
Appendix A, Table A-4, Table A-5 ,- and Tables A-6a and 6b, respectively.
5.4.5
Design of Lagoons and Evaporative Ponds for Swine and Poultry Operations
Basic volume requirements, for liquid storage are determined by calculating the
manure volume generated for the storage period and multiplying that number, by-a dilution factor.
The dilution factor is intended to address process dilution; netdifect precipitation (precipitation
minus evaporation over lagoon surface), freeboard (1 foot), and storage for the 25-year, 24-hour
rainfall event.
Design
The basic design steps employed for dairy and veal lagoons are also used for swine
and poultry lagoons. Unique lagoon dimensions are calculated for each model facility based upon
the required storage volume. The cost model applies berms on two sides of liquid storage
structures to eliminate runoff into storage facilities (see Section 5.3).
USDA's design approach provides storage for manure, clean water used in
dilution, accumulated solids and wastewater, net precipitation (precipitation - evaporation), the
25-year 24-hour rainfall event, and 1 foot of freeboard (USDA NRCS, 1996). In cases where
there are watersheds draining to the lagoon, USDA adds volume for runoff. Basic volume
requirements for storage of liquid wastes from swine and wet layer operations are determined by
calculating the manure volume generated for the storage period and multiplying that number by a
dilution factor. The dilution factor is intended to address process dilution, net direct precipitation
(precipitation minus evaporation over lagoon surface), freeboard (1 foot), and storage for the 25-
year 24-hour rainfall event. Solids accumulation is assumed to not occur since it is assumed that
waste is agitated and mixed before application to fields.
5-44
-------
The suitability of the modeled lagoons to handle all inputs was tested in an exercise
to determine if overflows would occur due to chronic and 25-year, 24-hour rainfall events. No
capacity problems were found in this testing, so it is concluded that lagoons designed using the
cost model approach are reasonable approximations of .those designed using USDA's approach.
The storage period for lagoons is assumed to be six months, except for those
options and scenarios where storage is increased. The required storage volume (Volumestorage) is
therefore calculated as:
where:
Volume,,
dilution
•2
Volumeslorage = Volumemimiirc x dilution/2
annual volume of manure produced
dilution factor (ranges from 1 to 3)
12 months/6 months storage.
The cost model addresses five cases for which lagoon construction costs are
included: (1) Option 1A, where increased storage is provided to handle chronic rainfall events at
wet layer operations and at swine operations with liquid or evaporative pond systems, (2)
increased storage for all swine facilities under Option 7, (3) the construction of secondary lagoons
for settling as part of the installation of flush-water recycling systems for Category 2 liquid swine
facilities under all options other than Option 5, (4) the replacement of evaporative ponds with
lined and covered lagoons under Option 5, and (5) the construction of a secondary lagoon with
storage for 20 days in conjunction with liner installation for liquid and evaporative pond systems.
In all other cases, the storage facility is designed for the purpose of deriving costs for liners,
covers, and diversions only, and lagoon construction costs are not included.
Under Option 1 A, the storage volume is increased to handle chronic rainfall,
ranging from 5 to 11 inches (see Table 5.4.5-1). The extra lagoon for flush-water recycling
systems is designed to handle storage for 20 days, the same design volume used for extra lagoons
constructed when liners are added to existing lagoons and evaporative ponds. Increased storage
under Option 7 is set to 90 days for the Mid-Atlantic region and 135 days for the Midwest and
5-45
-------
Central regions. Lagoons constructed to replace evaporative ponds are designed to handle the
same volume as the evaporative ponds, and then 6 inches of depth is removed to account for the
covers which keep direct precipitation from entering the lagoon.
Table 5.4.5-1
Chronic Rainfall Amounts for Option 1A for Swine and Poultry
Region
Central
Mid-Atlantic
Midwest
South
Chronic Rainfall Amount (inches)
5
11
' ' ' ' ' 7
10
Dimensions and Configuration
The shape assumed for lagoons and evaporative ponds is an upside-down frustrum,
which is a pyramid with the top chopped off. The shape and parameters of a frustrum are given in
Figure 5.4.5-1. The cost model assume that lagoons and evaporative ponds are square (a=b and
c=d).
Area and Volume of the Frustrum of a Pyramid
Area ~ &i •*- B2-f A*
= ab + cd +(a+b-H:-HJ) »
Votume = --h (B,
Figure 5.4.5-1. Frustrum
5-46
-------
Because lagoons have sloping sides, the minimum volume associated with a lagoon
12 feet deep with side slopes (H:V) of 2 is 9,216 cubic feet. For an evaporative pond with a
depth of 4 feet and side slopes of 2, the minimum volume is 341 cubic feet. Since the cost model
calculates lagoon dimensions from lagoon volume, which can be very small for secondary
lagoons, there is the potential that calculations result in negative bottom widths and lengths if the
depth and side slopes are fixed values. To prevent these negative values from occurring, an
analysis of lagoon dimensions resulting from various volumes, lagoon depths, and side slopes was
conducted. The results from this, analysis are presented in Table 5.4.5-2. When applying the
information contained in Table 5.4.5-2 to the design of anaerobic lagoons in the cost model, the
default depth is 12 feet, and a preference is given to maintaining a depth of at least 10 feet
wherever possible, but no less than 6 feet (see Table 5.4.5-3). This approach is consistent with
USDA guidelines specifying that the minimum acceptable depth for anaerobic lagoons is 6 feet,
but in colder climates at least 10 feet is recommended to assure proper operation and odor control
(USDA NRCS, 1996). USDA also recommends that internal slopes be no less than 1.5:1 (H:V)
for liquid storage (USDANRCS; 1996).
According to the American Society of Agricultural Engineers standards (ASAE,
1998), a minimum lagoon depth of 5 feet is necessary for construction of anaerobic lagoons, and
approximately 20 feet is considered the maximum depth to ensure proper biological activity.
5-47
-------
table 5.4.5-2
Relationships Among Depth, Side Slope, Volume, And
Bottom Width of Lagoons
Depth
12
12
12
11
11
11
10
10
10
9
9
9
8
8
8
7
7
7
6
6
6
6
5
5
5
5
4
4
4
4
Side Slope
4
3
2
4
3
2
4
3
2
4
3
2
4
3
2
4
3
2
4
3
2
1
4
3
2
1
4
3
2
1
Volume Below Which Calculations Result In
Negative Value for Bottom Width of Lagoon
36,864
20,736
9,216
28,395
15,972
7,099
21,334
12,000
5,334
15,552
8,748
3,888
10,923
6,144
2,731
7,318
4,116
1,830
4,608
2,592
1,152
288
2,667
1,500
667
167
1,365
,768
342
86
5-48
-------
Table 5.4.5-3
Depth and Side Slopes for Lagoons and Evaporative Ponds
Volume (cubic feet)
> 0 and < 342
>=342
>0and<167
>=167and<288 '
>=288 and <1,152
>=l,152and=l,830and<2,731
>=2,731and<3,888
>=3,888 and <5,334
>=5,334 and <7,099
>=7,099and<9,216
>=9,216
Lagoons
Depth
NA
NA
4
5
6
6
7
.8
r 9
10 '
11
12
Slope
.NA
NA
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
-' 2
2
2
Evaporative Ponds
Depth
, '4
4
NA
' NA
NA
NA
NA
NA :
NA
NA
NA
NA
Slope
1
2
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA: Not applicable. , . •
Because some of the modeled lagoons are very small, a depth of 4 feet is allowed for volumes less
than 167 cubic feet, and a depth of 5 feet is allowed for volumes of 167-287 cubic feet. This
allowance for shallow anaerobic lagoons is particularly important in calculations of the costs for
extra storage.
Lagoon dimensions are calculated from volume using the following basic
equations:
Wlagoonbottom=[(-2h2s)+((4x(h^) x (s2)) - 4xhx((4/3)x(h3)x(s2).Volumestorage))°-5]-f-2h
=
•^lagoonbottom ** lagoonbottom
Wlagoontop =Wlagoonbottom+(2 X S X depth)
Llagoomop=Liagoonbottom+(2 x S X depth)
5-49
-------
where:
"lagoonbottom
w
•'lagoontop
•Magoonbottom
•Magoontop
S
h
Width of bottom of lagoon or evaporative pond, ft
Width of top of lagoon or evaporative pond, ft
Length of bottom of lagoon or evaporative pond, ft
Length of top of lagoon or evaporative pond, ft
Slope of sidewalls
Depth of the lagoon, ft.
To simulate increased storage volume for chronic rainfall under Option 1 A, the
cost model increases the top width (and length since it is assumed to be square) of the lagoon with
the following equation:
where:
W,
' * lagoontop
S
chronic
12
2
Wlagoontop =WIagoontop + (2 x s x chronic •*-12)
Width of top of lagoon or evaporative pond, ft
Slope of sidewalls
Chronic rainfall, in
12 inches per foot
Two sides.
The equation essentially builds additional storage above the existing lagoon,
resulting in a wider, longer, and deeper lagoon. The new top width and length are used to
calculate the new lagoon volumes, liner areas, berm dimensions, and cover areas for Option 1 A.
The increase in lagoon volume is calculated by subtracting the original volume from the new
volume.
An additional 20 days of storage is provided by both the extra lagoons for flush-
water recycling systems and the extra lagoons constructed when liners are added to existing
lagoons and evaporative ponds. This additional storage volume (Volume20.daystorage) is calculated
with the following equation:
, * 20 - 365 - 7.481 - 27
5-50
-------
where:
= 12-month storage volume in gallons
20/365 = Fraction of year covered by 20 days
7.481 converts to cubic feet - . • . .
27 converts to cubic yards.
Increased storage under Option 7 is set to 90 days for the Mid-Atlantic region and
135 days for the Midwest and Central regions. The storage volume is calculated using the same
equation as above, with the exception that 20 is replaced with 90 or 135.
Under Option 5, the cost model builds a new lago'on to replace evaporative ponds
since this approach is less expensive than covering the large but shallow evaporative ponds. First,
the dimensions of the new lagoon are determined using the basic equations from above. Then,
lagoon depth is decreased by 6 inches. The typical annual rainfall in the central region where
evaporative ponds are used is 1 foot, and 6 inches is selected since the storage period is six
months. The lagoon bottom width and length remain the same, but the width and length of the
lagoon top are then recalculated using the following equations:
where:
W,
' * lagoontop
•Magoontop
S
"lagoontop "lagoontop ~ (2 X S)
*-'lagoontop~~Magoontop ~ (2 x S)
Width of top of lagoon or evaporative pond, ft
Length of top of lagoon or evaporative pond, ft
Slope of sidewalls.
Volume is then calculated using the frustrum equation with the original bottom dimensions, the
new depth, and the new top dimensions.
5-51
-------
Lagoon Liners
The surface area of lagoons and evaporative ponds for swine and poultry
operations is calculated using the same basic equations described in Section 5.4.2 for dairies and
veal operations. The cost for a lagoon is calculated using the same costs shown in Table 5.4.3-1.
5.4.6
Costs for Lagoons at Swine and Poultry Operations
Capital Costs
The excavation cost of $2.60 per cubic yard for swine and poultry operations is
multiplied by the volume or volume change (e.g., Option 1 A) to determine total excavation costs.
When a liner is present, unit liner costs are the same as shown in Table 5.4.3-1, and are multiplied
by liner area to determine total liner cost.
where:
Capital Cost = Excavation Cost x Volume Excavated + Liner Cost
Excavation Cost =
Volume Excavated =
Liner Cost =
$2.60 per cubic yard
Volume or volume change of lagoon
Clay liner + synthetic liner.
capital costs.
Annual Costs
The annual maintenance and operation cost is assumed to be 2 percent of the
Annual Cost = 2% x Capital Cost
5-52
-------
5.5
Ponds
Waste storage ponds are frequently used at animal feeding operations to contain
wastewater and runoff from contaminated areas. Manure and runoff are routed to the storage
pond where the mixture is held until it can be used for irrigation or can be transported elsewhere.
Solids settle to the bottom of the pond as sludge, which is periodically removed and land applied
on site or off site. The liquid can be applied to cropland as fertilizer/irrigation, used for dust
control, reused as flush water for animal bams, or transported off site. Section 5.9 discusses the
costs associated with transporting waste off site, including the solids and liquids.
Ponds are included in all regulatory options for beef feedlots, heifer operations,
and as a holding pond for effluent from an anaerobic digester in Option 6. Options 1, 2, 4, 5A,
and 6 require zero discharge of manure, litter, or process wastewater pollutants from the
production area with the exception of overflows from a facility designed to hold all process
wastewater, including the direct precipitation and runoff from a 25-year, 24-hour rainfall event.
CAFOs that already have storage ponds in place are assumed to have sufficient capacity. CAFOs
that have no storage on site are costed for the installation of naturally lined ponds with 180 days
of storage. Under Option 7, CAFOs are costed for the installation of naturally lined ponds with a
storage capacity that varies based on land application timing restrictions. For Options 3A/3B and
3C/3D, CAFOs expected to have a direct hydrologic connection from ground water to surface
water are given costs for the installation of storage ponds with a liner to prevent seepage of
wastewater into ground water.
5.5.1
Technology Description
Storage ponds provide a location for long-term storage of water and are
appropriate for the collection of runoff. Ponds are typically located at a lower elevation than the
animal pens or barns; gravity is used to transport the waste to the pond, which minimizes labor.
Although ponds are an effective means of storing waste, no treatment is provided. Because ponds
are open to the air, odor can be a problem.
5-53
-------
Although ponds are not designed for treatment, there is some reduction of nitrogen
and phosphorus in the liquid effluent due to settling and volatilization. Influent phosphorus settles
to the bottom of the pond and is removed with the sludge. Influent nitrogen is reduced through
volatilization to ammonia. Pond effluent can be applied to cropland as fertilizer/irrigation, reused
as flush water for the animal barns, or transported off site.. The sludge can also be land applied as
a fertilizer and soil amendment
Storage ponds are appropriate for use at operations that collect runoff and do not
collect process water or manure flush water. Typically, beef feedlots and heifer operations
operate in this manner and have storage ponds for runoff collection. All cost options for beef
feedlots and heifer operations include a storage pond. Dairies and veal operations typically
operate lagoons (discussed in Section 5.4) to provide treatment for the barn and milking parlor
flush water; however, a storage pond is included in the costs for large dairies under Option ,6,
where the pond receives effluent from an anaerobic digester.
Not all beef feedlots and heifer operations are expected to have liquid storage
currently in place. In addition, ponds without a synthetic or clay liner are currently more
prevalent at beef feedlots and heifer operations than are lined ponds. Section 6.0 provides EPA's
estimates of the percentage of beef feedlots and heifer operations that are costed for the
installation of a pond, a pond with a liner (for Options 3A/3B and 3C/3D), or a pond with
additional capacity (for Option 7).
5.5.2
Design
The cost model assumes only direct precipitation or runoff that has gone through a
settling basin (or separator) enters the storage pond. Runoff will contain a portion of manure
solids from the beef drylots. Ponds are typically constructed by excavating a pit and using the
excavated soil to build embankments around the perimeter. An additional 5 percent is added to
the required height of the embankments to allow for settling. The sides of the pond are sloped
with a 1.5:1 or 3:1 (horizontal:vertical) ratio.
5-54
-------
Considerations are also made to avoid ground-water and soil contamination.
Options 1,2,4, 5 A, 6, and 7 assume the bottom and sides of the pond are constructed of soil that
is at least 10 percent clay compacted with a sheepsfoot roller. Under Options 3A/3B and 3C/3D,
>
some CAFOs will require additional ground-water protection; therefore, a synthetic liner is
included in the lagoon costs in addition to a compacted clay liner.
Storage ponds are designed using the following steps:
1) Determine the necessary pond volume. Storage ponds are designed to
contain the following volumes (see Figure 5.5.2-1):
— Sludge Volume: Volume of accumulated sludge between clean-outs
(depends on the type and amount of animal waste),
— • • Runoff: The runoff from drylots for normal and peak precipitation,
— Net Precipitation: Annual precipitation minus the annual
evaporation,
— Design Storm: The depth of the peak (e.g., 25-year, 24-hour)
rainfall event, and
— Freeboard: A minimum of 1 foot of freeboard.
2) Determine the dimensions and configuration of the pond, depending on the
regulatory option.
3) Determine the costs for constructing the pond, using the dimensions
calculated in Step 2.
5-55
-------
A
Freeboard
Required
volume
Depth of runoff from a 25-year, 24-hour storm event
Depth of normal precipitation less evaporation
\
Runoff from normal precipitation
Sludge volume
y
Source: Agricultural Waste Handbook, USD A, 1996.
Figure 5.5.2-1. Cross-Section of a Storage Pond
Step 1) Determination of Pond Volume
The pond volume is determined by the following equation:
Pond Volume = Sludge Volume + Runoff + Net Precipitation + Design Storm + Freeboard
The determination of each volume is discussed below.
Sludge Volume
The amount of sludge that accumulates between pond cleanouts varies based on
the type and amount of animal waste. As manure decomposes in the pond, portions of the total
solids do not decompose. A layer of sludge accumulates on the floor of the pond, which is
proportional to the quantity of total solids that enter the pond. The sludge accumulation period is
equal to the storage retention time of the pond. A rate of sludge accumulation is not available for
beef cattle but is estimated to be the same as dairy cattle: 0.0729 cubic feet per pound (ftVlb)
(USDA NRCS, 1996). The calculation of the separator solids is discussed in Section 5.2,
assuming 50-percent settling rate. The calculation of the runoff solids is discussed in Section 4.7.
5-56
-------
Sludge Volume = Sludge Accumulation x Runoff Solids
where:
Sludge Volume =
Sludge Accumulation =
Runoff Solids
Amount of sludge that accumulates between pond
cleanouts, ft3
0.0729, ftMb
Quantity of total solids that enter the pond following
separation, pounds, Ib.
Runoff
The amount of runoff entering the pond is determined from the net precipitation
and area of the drylot, as discussed in Section 4.7. The amount of runoff is determined by
estimating the precipitation for the number of days of storage assumed for each option. New
ponds are costed under Options 1 through 6 for 180 days of storage. Option 7 storage
requirements are presented in Table 5.5.2-1. In addition, the runoff contribution to the pond is
reduced by the amount of water retained by the solids that settle out in the basin. The solids
entering the earthen basin are 1.5 percent of the total runoff (see Section 4.7 for more
information), while the solids entering the pond are 50 percent of the basin solids (i.e., the
efficiency of the settling basin is assumed to be 50 percent).
Table 5.5.2-1
Pond Storage Capacities at Beef Feedlot and Heifer Operations for Option 7
'v ' Region
Central
Mid-Atlantic
Midwest
Pacific
South
Estimated Storage
Capacity for
Option 7 (days)
180
225
225
135
45
Source: ERG, 2000a and ERG 2002.
Estimated Existing
Storage Capacity
,/ . ' (days)
50
80
190
30
45
'
Additional Pond
Capacity Costed for ••
Existing Ponds (days)
130
145
35
105
0
'
5-57
-------
Influent Runoff Solids,^,,,,,, = Total Runoff Solids6.roomh x (l^Settling Basin Efficiency)
where:
Influent Runoff Solids
Total Runoff Solids6.momh
Settling Basin Efficiency
Amount of solids entering the pond (i.e.,
solids exiting the settling basin), ft3
Amount of the total runoff entering the
settling basin that consists of solids, ft3
50% (i.e., percent of solids that settled in the
settling basin).
where:
Note that:
Settled Solids6.monlh = Total Runoff Solids^™,,, x Settling Basin Efficiency
Settled
Total Runoff Solids^,,,
Settling Basin Efficiency
Amount of solids that settled in the settling
basin from the runoff entering the basin, ft3
Amount of the total runoff entering the
settling basin that consists of solids, ft3
50% (i.e., percent of solids that settled in the
settling basin).
Total Runoff Solidss.^,,, = Influent Runoff Solids6.raonth + Settled Solids^,,,,,,,
For the cost model calculations, it is assumed that settled solids have a moisture
content of 80 percent (based on best professional judgement); therefore, the runoff entering the
pond is:
180 days
x Storage Days -
where:
Settled Solids6.month x Solidsmoisture
1 Solidsmoisture
+ Peak Rainfall Runoff
Amount of runoff entering the pond from the
settling basin and drainage area, ft3
Total runoff entering the settling basin calculated
using the average monthly precipitation amounts
from the wettest six-month consecutive period (see
Section 4.7), ft3
5-58
-------
180 days
Storage Days
Settled Solids,
'6-month
Solids,
moisture
Peak Rainfall Runoff =
Number of storage days for runoff
Required number of storage days for the specific
option, days
Amount of solids that settled in the settling basin
from the runoff entering the basin, ft3
80% (i.e., moisture content percentage in the settled
solids)
Total runoff from the peak rainfall event (either 25-
year, 24-hour or 25-year, 24-hour plus 10-year, 10-
day).
Section 4.7 describes the details of the precipitation and runoff calculations.
Net Precipitation , , .,
The. pond depth is increased to allow for direct net precipitation, as discussed in
Section 4.7. The net precipitation contribution to the pond depth is equal to the average
precipitation minus the average evaporation.
Design Storm
The depth of the peak rainfall event is added to the depth of the pond to account
for direct precipitation. For all options except 1 A, this peak rainfall event is the 25-year, 24-hour
rainfall. For Option 1 A, a sensitivity analysis conducted by EPA to account for chronic rainfall,
the peak storm is defined as the 25-year, 24-hour rainfall plus the 10-year, 10-day rainfall.
Precipitation information for these storms was also extracted from the NCDC database.
where:
Peak Precipitation =25-Yr, 24-Hr Rainfall or 25-Yr, 24-Hr + 10-Yr, 10-Day Rainfall
Peak Precipitation
25-Yr, 24-Hr Rainfall
10-Yr, 10-Day Rainfall
Precipitation depth that falls directly on the
pond from the peak rainfall event, inches
Depth of the 25-year, 24-hour peak rainfall,
inches
Depth of the 10-year, 10-day chronic rainfall',
inches.
5-59
-------
Freeboard
A minimum of 1 foot of freeboard is added to the depth.
Step 2) Dimensions and Configuration of Pond
The pond is designed approximately in the shape of an inverted frustum (i.e., an
inverted pyramid with a flat bottom), containing the required volume. The initial depth of the
pond is set as follows:
•h = Initial Depth + Net Precipitation + Freeboard + Peak Precipitation
where:
Initial Depth.
Net Precipitation
Freeboard
Peak Precipitation
Depth of the pond, ft
10ft
Six-month precipitation depth that falls directly on
the pond minus the amount that evaporates from the
pond, ft
1 foot
Precipitation depth that falls directly on the pond
from the peak rainfall event, ft.
The initial depth of the pond is set at 10 feet, based on discussions with industry
consultants. This initial depth is assumed to include depth for the runoff and solids. This depth is
used as the starting value for the dimensions calculations using the required volume of the pond.
The pond is assumed to be square,- and the final depth and length is solved by iteration, knowing
the pond volume and the other variables in .the equation.
Fond Dimensions
For the cost model calculations, it is assumed that the pond has four sloped sides
with a rectangular base. To determine the dimensions of the pond, the design volume of the pond
is used with the design parameters discussed previously. The following equation is used to
determine the length of the basin:
5-60
-------
where:
Pond Volume = Vz h [A, + A2 + (A, A2 )°-5]
Pond Volume = 1A h [lb Wb + ls Ws +• (lbWblsWs)0-5]
Pond Volume
h
A,
A2
Wb
Is
w,
Necessary volume of the pond calculated in Step 1), ft3
Depth of the pond, ft
Area of the bottom base of the pond, assuming the pond is
square (this equals lb Wb)
Area of the top (surface area) of the pond, assuming the
ixmd is square (this equals ls Ws)
Length of the base of the pond, ft
Width of the base of the pond, ft
Length of the top of the pond, ft
Width of the top of the pond, ft.
Pond Excavation and Embankment Volumes
Ponds are constructed by excavating a portion of the necessary volume and
building embankments around the perimeter of the pond to make up the total design volume. The
cost model performs an iteration to maximize the use of excavated material used in constructing
the embankments that minimizes the costs for construction. The excavation volume is
represented by the following equation: ' '
where:
Volumeexoavated = 0.5 (h-hc) [lbwb + lsws
Volume,
'excavated
W
Total volume of soil extracted from the pond, ft3
Depth of the pond, ft
Height of embankment, ft
Length of the base of the pond, ft
Width of the base of the pond, ft
Length of the top of the pond, ft
Width of the top of the pond, ft.
The excavated soil is used to build the embankments. Because some settling of the
soil will occur, it is assumed that an extra 5 percent of volume is required. The embankment
volume is represented by the following equation:
-------
Volun«w«ta«i = 2 [(1.05 hcwe + s (1.05 he)2) (lb +2 sh)] + 2 [(1.05 hewe + (1.05 s)2 he2) (w + 2sh)]
where:
S
W
Total volume of soil used for the embankment, ft3
Depth embankment, ft
Width embankment, ft
Length of the base of the pond, ft
slope of walls of pond, ft/ft
width of the base of the pond, ft.
The dimensions of the basin which yield the desired volume are calculated by the cost model.
Pond Liners
For Options 3A/3B and 3C/3D, ponds,are designed with a synthetic liner for those
operations located in areas requiring ground water protection. The liner consists of clay soil with
a synthetic liner cover. The dimensions of the liner are equal to the surface area of the floor and
sides of the pond.
The surface area of the floor of the pond is calculated to determine the area for
*
compaction and for the pond liner. The surface area includes the bottom area plus the area of the
four trapezoids that make up the sides of the pond.
The surface area of the sloped sides is calculated using the formula for the area of
a trapezoid.
where:
Area of Side, =
AreaofSidew =
HS
Area of Side, = K HS * (lb + ls)
Area of Sidew = 1A HS x (wb + ws)
Area of length side of the pond, ft2
Area of width side of the pond, ft2
Height of the side on the pond (see equation below), ft
Bottom length of the pond, ft
Top length of the pond, ft
5-62
-------
w
Bottom width of the pond, ft
Top width of the pond, ft.
The height of the side is calculated using the Pythagorean Theorem.
20-5
where:
HS. ='
h =
(4h)2)
Height of the side on the pond, ft
Depth of the pond, ft.
The total surface area of the basin is:
where:
Surface Area,,ond = lb Wb + 2 [Area of Side,] + 2 [Area of Sidew]
Surface Areap0[ld
wb
Area of Side,
Area of Side,,
Total surface area of the pond floor, including the
bottom 'and sides, ft2
Bottom length of the pond, ft
Bottom width of the pond, ft
Area of length side of the pond, ft2
Area of width side of the pond, ft2.
5.5.3
Costs
The construction of the storage pond includes a mobilization fee for the heavy
machinery, excavation of the pond area, compaction of the ground and walls of the pond, and the
construction of conveyances to direct runoff from the drylot area to the storage pond. Table
5.5.3-1 presents the unit costs used to calculate the capital and annual cost for constructing
storage ponds.
5-63
-------
Table 5.5.3-1
Unit Costs for Storage Pond
Unit
Mobilization
Excavation
Compaction
Conveyance
Clay Liner (shipped & installed)
Synthetic Liner (installed)
Cost
(1997 dollars) .
$205/event
$2.02/yd3
$0.4J/yd3
$7,644/event
• $Q.2A/& — •
••$r.5o7ft2""' ' :
v • ' Source
Means 1999 (022 274 0020)"
Means 1999 (022 238 0200)"
Means 1996 (022 226 5720)a ,
ERG,2000c
AEA;--1 999 ! '•
f etra Tech, 2000c
The calculations for the costs associated with these items are shown below:
Mobilization
, • 1
The mobilization costs are $205/event (i.e., $205 to mobilize all equipment on
site). These costs are for moving the appropriate heavy machinery and equipment.
Excavation
To calculate the pond excavation costs, the volume of material that is excavated is
first calculated, as described previously. The excavated material is expected to be used to
construct embankments around the pond, which will provide additional storage other than that
volume which is excavated; therefore, the excavated volume is not equal to the pond volume.
Instead, it is equal to the pond volume minus the storage that the embankments provide.
The excavation cost is calculated with the following equation:
Excavation = Cost x
Volumeexcavated
Conversion Factor
5-64
-------
where:
Excavation
Cost
Volumeexcavated
Conversion Factor
Total cost to excavate the pond, $
$2.02/yd3 (i.e., cost per the volume of soil
, _ excavated)
Amount (volume) of soil excavated, ft3
27 ftVyd3 (i.e., conversion from ft3 to yd3).
Compaction
> " ~*'
To calculate compaction costs, the volume for compaction is calculated, as
described in Section 5.1. The compaction cost is calculated with the following equation:
where:
Compaction = Cost x
Volume,
'compacted
(ft3)
Compaction
Cost
Volumecompacted
Conversion Factor
Conversion Factor
Total cost to compact the pond, $
$0.41/yd3 (i.e.', cost per volume of soil compacted)
Amount (volume) of soil compacted, ft3
27 fWyd3 (i.e., conversion from ft3 to yd3).
Conveyance
The conveyance costs are for constructing conveyances to direct runoff from the
drylot area to the storage pond. According to the Means Construction Data, this cost is
$7,644/event.
Clay and Synthetic Liners
To calculate liner costs, the surface area of the basin'floor and sidewalls is
calculated, as described in Section 5.1. The liner cost includes both a clay and synthetic liner, and
is calculated using the following equations:
5-65
-------
where:
Clay Liner =
Cost
Surface Area =
Clay Liner = Cost x Surface Area
Cost to install a clay liner, $
$"0.24/ft? (i.e., cost per the surface area of the pond)
Surface area of the basin floor and the sidewalls, ft2.
where:
Synthetic Liner = Cost x Surface Area
Synthetic Liner
Cost
Surface Area
Cost to install a synthetic liner, $
$l.5Q/fP(i.e., cost per the surface area of the pond)
Surface area of the basin floor and the sidewaills, ft2.
following:
following:
Total Capital Costs for Naturally Lined and Synthetically Lined Ponds
The total capital cost for construction of the naturally-lined storage pond is the
Capital Cost = Mobilization + Excavation + Compaction + Conveyance
The total capital cost for construction of the synthetically lined pond is the
Capital Cost = Mobilization + Excavation + Compaction + Conveyance + Clay Liner + Synthetic Liner
Total Annual Costs
Based on best professional judgement, annual operating and maintenance costs for
both naturally lined and synthetically lined storage ponds are estimated at 5 percent of the total
capital costs.
Annual Cost = 5% x Capital Cost
5-66
-------
5.5.4 ;:1.
Results
The cost model results for constructing a naturally lined storage pond, a
synthetically lined storage pond, and additional ponds for extra capacity (Option 7) are presented
in-Appendix A, Table A-7, Table A-8, and Tables A-9a and 9b,, respectively.
5.6
Nutrient Management
The cost model assumes that as part of the regulation, CAFOs will be required to
conduct certain practices to appropriately manage their nutrients. - These practices include: the
development of a nutrient management plan, soil sampling, manure, sampling, recordkeeping and
reporting costs, purchase of nitrogen fertilizer, lagoon depth marker, establishment of setback
-',' rXlV '' ' •. ; : '
areas, and calibration of a manure spreader. Each of these are described in this section. The sum
of the nutrient management costs are presented for beef feedlots, dairies, heifer and veal
i i- . L. - " - .
operations in Appendix A, Tables A-lOa and lOb. Tables A-lOc through A-lOg present costs for
- -,•••>•" J.
buffers at swine and poultry operations.
5.6.1
Nutrient Management Plan Development and Associated Costs
The cost model assumes that all but Category 3 animal feeding operations covered
by this regulation will need to develop and implement a nutrient management plan for then-
operation. To this end, there is an initial cost for the owner/operator of the farm to be trained in
nutrient management planning. Further, for all but Category 3 farms, it is assumed that the
owner/operator develops or updates then: nutrient management plan every 5 years.
On-Farm Nutrient Management Plan (NMP) Development
The cost to develop an on-farm NMP is calculated by multiplying the farm size
(number of tillable acres) by a NMP rate in dollars per acre. NMP rates vary depending on the
level of services (e.g., soil sampling, manure sampling, and analysis). EPA selected a NMP rate of
$5 per tillable acre, assuming that costs for soil and manure testing were estimated separately
5-67
-------
from NMP development and the higher costs for NMP development are usually attributed to
testing costs. While the final regulation requires that NMPs be rewritten at a minimum of every 5
years; therefore, the cost models for all operations include costs to revise the NMP every 5 years.
Costs for an annual review of the NMP are included under the recordkeeping requirements for all
facilities.
EPA also assumes that there will be a one-time fixed cost for documenting the
manure generation, collection, storage, and treatment systems at animal operations that require
nutrient management planning. EPA assumes that this documentation will be prepared by a
nutrient management specialist as the first step in the nutrient management planning development
process. Labor hours for both the farmer and the nutrient management specialist are required.
EPA assumes this documentation will require 8 hours of time by the farmer at $10' per hour and
16 hours of time by the nutrient management specialist at $55 per hour. This cost is:
One-time Fixed Cost
(8 hours x $10/hr) + (16 hours x $55/hr)
$960.
5.6.2
Soil Sampling
As part of nutrient management planning requirements, the cost model includes
costs for soil sampling and analysis to determine the nutrient balance of the soil prior to manure
application. Costs associated with soil sampling include a fixed cost for equipment purchase and
soil sampling costs every 3 years.
Soil Sampler
The one time capital cost for equipment was estimated to be $25 for a soil auger
(ASC Scientific, 1999). Category 3 facilities do not incur this cost since they have no land.
5-68
-------
Soil Sampling
The cost model assumes that on-farm soil sampling will occur at least once every 3
years. EPA selected a soil sampling rate of one composite sample per 20 tillable acres, based
upon a review of federal and state soil sampling recommendations. A composite soil sample was
estimated to take 1 hour because of the distance between samples, and labor costs for soil
sampling were estimated to be $ 10/hr. Costs for soil analysis for major nutrients and important
soil characteristics were estimated at $10 per sample based on a review of costs by state NRGS
labs. Category 3 facilities do not incur this cost since they have no land.
5.6.3
Manure Sampling
As part of nutrient management planning requirements, the cost model includes
costs for manure sampling and analysis to determine the nutrient balance of the manure prior to
application to cropland. Costs associated with manure sampling apply to all facilities and include
a fixed cost for equipment purchase and semiannual manure sampling costs.
Manure Sampler :
The one-time cost for equipment to sample liquid manure waste is estimated at $30
for a manure sampler. The manure sampler consists of a hollow conduit long enough to extend to
the bottom of the lagoon, pit, or other storage structure. In the case of solid manure, a shovel or
similar device is sufficient to obtain a representative sample and therefore no cost is assumed.
Manure Sampling
Manure sampling costs are based on sampling twice per year. The cost of manure
sampling includes the labor required and the manure nutrient analysis. For all poultry and swine
facilities, 1 hour is required to sample the main storage area. For dry poultry, an additional 0.25
hour per house is required to collect a composite sample from each house. Beef feedlots and
5-69
-------
dairies are assumed to have two samples of .the liquid waste and two samples of solid waste
collected per year, for a total of four samples per year.
Labor rates are estimated"at$10/hr. Manure analysis was estimated at $40 per
sample based on a review of costs by state soir conservation service labs.
5.6.4
Recordkeeping and Reporting
As part of implementing a nutrient management plan, the cost model assigns
annual costs to each facility for recordkeeping and reporting time. Recordkeeping costs
($880/year) for all facilities include the cost of recording animal inventories, manure generation,
field application of manure and other nutrients (amount, rate, method, incorporation, dates),
manure and soil analysis compilation, crop yield goals and harvested yields, crop rotations, tillage
practices, rainfall and irrigation, lime applications, findings from visual inspections of feedlot areas
and fields, lagoon emptying, and other activities on a monthly basis.
EPA estimated that large facilities incur an additional cost of $1407 year to
maintain records of manure that is transferred to a third party. The average number of transfers
per large CAPO is 16,900, based on.excess manure estimates in Simons (2002). Using the 100-
ton transfer estimate from Simons (2002), the average annual number of transfers per CAFO of
169 (16,900 •*• 100). It should not require more than five minutes per transfer to record the four
data items: the name of the recipient, the data of the transfer, the quantity of manure, and its
nutrient content. Therefore, the annual burden estimate will be approximately 14 hours (169
transfers x 5 minutes/transfer -=- 60 minutes/hour). The additional $8.50 cost per 20-ton load to
weight a truck (Simons, 2002) is not a required cost of the rule and, therefore, is excluded from
the offsite transfer cost estimate.
Records may include manure spreader calibration worksheets, manure application
worksheets, maintenance logs, soil and manure test results, and documentation of corrective
actions taken in response to findings from visual inspections. EPA assumed 8 hours were needed
to prepare an annual report on animal inventories, manure generation, and overall manure
5-70
-------
application. Monthly write-ups and field observations are assumed to require 3 hours each (72
hours annually). Thus, a total of 80 hours annually was estimated for recordkeeping at $10/hour.
Other costs associated with recordkeeping, including obtaining signed certifications of proper
manure application from off-site manure recipients, were estimated at 10 percent of labor costs.
5.6.5
Commercial Nitrogen Fertilizer
The nitrogen-to-phosphoras ratio in manure is typically much lower
(approximately 2:1) than harvested crop nutrient removal ratios (approximately 6:1). Therefore,
facilities that must land apply their manure on a phosphorus basis rather than a nitrogen basis
incur additional costs because a commercial source of nitrogen must be applied to their fields
(termed sidedressing) to compensate for the nitrogen not supplied through manure application.
The cost model assumes a cost of 12.30 per pound of additional nitrogen is required, based upon
the cost data shown in Table 5.6.5-1. No,veal operations are assumed to need commercial
fertilizer. Appendix A, Table A-l 1 presents the cost model results for purchasing commercial
nitrogen fertilizer for beef feedlots, dairies, heifer, and veal operations.
5.6.6
Table 5.6.5-1
Retail Cost of Nitrogen Fertilizer
Fertilizer
Anhydrous Ammonia
Urea
Ammonium Nitrate
U.S. Average
RetaH Cost Per Pound of Nitrogen ; :j
140
120
110
12.30
Source: The Fertilizer Institute, 1999.
Lagoon Depth Marker
EPA believes that all facilities with liquid waste impoundments should have a •
gauge to measure the remaining storage capacity. A lagoon depth marker can be manufactured by
purchasing PVC pipe, fittings, and cement to construct a length of incrementally marked pipe long
5-71
-------
enough to reach the bottom of the lagoon and extend above the freeboard. EPA estimated lhat
building and installing a lagoon depth marker would cost $30.
5.6.7
Establishment of Setback Areas
The final rule requires either (1) a 100-foot manure application setback from
surface waters, sinkholes, open tile dram inlets, or (2) a 30-foot vegetated buffer from surface
waters, sinkholes, open tile drain inlets, or (3) one or more NRCS field practices providing an
equal or better level of protection (a certified CNMP is deemed to meet this requirement).
However, EPA believes that in addition to manure application setbacks from.
surface waters, operations should also establish buffer strips or their equivalent to control erosion
and treat field runoff. Thus, EPA estimated the costs of 100-foot .buffer strips for fields used for
manure application that are adjacent to streams, discussed below.
The costs of the buffer should be thought of as an,allowance for the AFO to
implement site specific field control practices such as conservation management. In other words,
controls other than buffer strips may be more effective in certain situations (Sims J., A. Leytem, F.
Coale, 2000), and this cost basis is considered an allowance that can be used to implement other
runoff control practices.
Initial Fixed Costs
EPA calculated the ratio of stream length to land area based on national estimates
of land area (3 million square miles of land in the contiguous United States (ESRI,1998) and
stream miles (3.5 million miles of streams (USEPA, 2000). This ratio was converted to miles per
acre (0.00144 mile of stream per acre of land). EPA then calculated the amount of land needed
for buffer construction by multiplying the average acres of cropland for each model farm by the
ratio of stream miles per acre of land, which determined the length of stream on each farm. EPA
further assumed that the farm is square and the stream runs down the middle of the farm, and the
width of the buffer (on both sides of the stream) is 100 feet. The cost of 100-foot buffers was
5-72
-------
based on information collected from a total of 914 filter strip projects in 28 states with an average
cost of $106.62/ac (1999 dollars; USEPA, 1993). The net loss of tillable land to establish a buffer
was estimated at 3.5 percent of the cropland (0.00144 mile of stream per acre x 5,280 feet per
mile x 200 ft2 of buffer per foot of stream length -*- 43,560 fWac). Thus, the cost for stream
buffers was estimated at approximately $3.72/ac of total cropland.
Annual Costs
EPA assumed that the land taken out of production for installation of buffer strips
was previously farmed. The rental value for land taken out of production was added to standard
O&M costs. The rental value for cropland used as a stream buffer was estimated at $64.00/ac/yr
based on analysis by North Carolina State University (NCSU, 1998).
5.6.8
Manure Spreader Calibration
EPA assumed that regular calibration of the manure spreader is part of
implementing the nutrient management plan. To meet this need, EPA assumed that Category 1
and 2 facilities will purchase two calibration scales to weight the manure spreader before and after
land application.
In cases where states require calibration of manure spreaders at broiler and turkey
facilities, EPA assumed that calibration scales (or an equivalent calibration technology or method)
are available to the facility, and therefore no costs were assumed. Solid manure spreaders can be
calibrated in a number of ways, some of which are based on volume instead of weight. Liquid-
based systems can also be calibrated in terms of volume. Section 8 of the Technical Development
Document describers methods for calibration of manure spreaders in greater detail.
Weighing the spreader before and after application is the ideal methodology for
wet or dry manure calibration because it is relatively quick and produces accurate results. This
approach is unsuitable for manure application devices such as umbilical applicators. Instead, the
volume of manure injected must be first be determined. The procedure includes collecting
5-73
-------
pumped material into a bucket to determine the flow rate, which decreases initial calibration costs.
Some operations that handle their manure in a drier form may be able to use a less expensive
calibration method. For example, spreading manure on a tarp and-weighing it on a less expensive
hanging balance would reduce initial calibration costs. '
Fixed One-Time Costs
EPA assumed the one-time cost for equipment is $500 for a scale to weigh the
manure spreader (one under each wheel at $250 each). '"''"• ••''•'
Annual Costs ' ;
EPA estimated the cost for manure spreader calibration to be $ 100 based on 4
hours of labor, at $10 per hour, for both wet and dry applicators and 2 hours of tractor time at
$30 per hour. EPA assumed that the time required for calibration included gathering required
equipment, loading manure, weighing the spreader before and after land application, and applying
manure to a known area of cropland. Category 3 facilities do not incur this cost since they have
no land.
5.7
Screen Solid-Liquid Separation for Swine Operations
Solid-liquid separation systems are used by many livestock operations as a way to
manage waste. Solid-liquid separation is the partial removal of organic and inorganic solids from
a mixture of animal wastes and process-generated wastewater (known as liquid manure).
Separating the solids from the liquid manure makes the liquids easier to pump and handle. The
cost model assigns costs to swine operations for screen separation.
5-74
-------
5.7.1
Technology Description and Design
Typically, screens are used to separate the solids from the liquids. As the liquids
pass through the screen, the solids accumulate", and are eventually collected. After collection, the
solids may be handled more economically for hauling, composting, refeeding or generating biogas
(methane). EPA assumes that the separator efficiency is 30 percent and that the solids content of
the separate.d.manure is 23 percent.
The approach taken in the cost model is to separate the solid from the liquid
portion of the manure to concentrate the nutrients thus reducing the costs associated with hauling
the excess nutrients. Both Category 2 and 3 swine facilities are given costs for solid-liquid
separation with screens.
5.7.2
Costs
Costs for solid/liquid separation are estimated as a one-time, fixed cost and an
annual cost, based on the following calculations. Costs include a tank with sufficient capacity to
store solids for six months, a mechanical solids separator, piping, and labor for installation.
Capital Cost
The following equation determines the initial cost to install a separator on a swine
operation:
Sepinitial = (Solids x Safety x Tankcost) + Separator + Pipelen x Pipecost + Seplabor x Labor
where:
Sepinitial
Solids
Safety
Tankcost
Initial cost ($) to install a separator system
Volume of solids separated from the manure every 6
months, gal
Safety factor providing additional storage for the
separator (115%)
Cost of installing a steel storage tank ($0.18/gallon)
5-75
-------
Separator
Pipelen
Pipecost
Seplabor
Labor
Cost of a separation device was estimated at
$13,000 for medium-sized operations and $28,000
for large operations, (USDA.NRCS, 2002a)
Pipe length needed to connect the lagoon to the
separator (250 feet)
Cost of pipe ($2.13/foot)
Time required to install the pipe and separator (4
hours)
Labor rate per hour ($10).
Annual Costs
The annual cost of operation and maintenance of solid-liquid separation systems
was estimated to be 2 percent of the total cost of installing 'the system.
5.8
Land Application
The purchase of land application equipment is a primary component of the
compliance costs for beef feedlots and dairies estimated by the cost model. The cost model
estimates costs for the purchase of irrigation equipment to apply liquid from ponds and lagoons to
the fields. The model assumes that all facilities already have equipment to apply solid manure and,
therefore, includes no cost for this. As described in Section 4.10, the cost model calculates the
total crop acreage used for application of liquid waste based on the nutrient assimilative capacity
of the crops and the total waste generated, and uses this total acreage to cost irrigation
equipment. The cost model includes no costs for application equipment for swine and poultry
operations.
The cost model uses two forms of irrigation, center pivot and traveling gun.
Center pivot irrigation is ideal for applying liquid waste to a large number of acres but is not as
cost-effective for smaller acreage. Therefore, the cost model estimates costs for center pivot
irrigation for facilities applying liquid manure to crop acreage greater than or equal to 30 acres
and for traveling gun irrigation for facilities applying liquid manure to less than 30 acres.
5-76
-------
5.8.1
Center Pivot Irrigation
Center pivots are a'-method of precisely inigating virtually any type of crop over
large areas of land. This technology is more expensive than other methods of irrigation, and
• i± • •** • ! H '. - v.' •• • '. \ . ,.•.', -
therefore, costs included in the cost model for center pivot irrigation are conservative. A center
pivot can effectively distribute liquid animal waste and supply nutrients to cropland at agronomic
rates because they have a high level of control. The center pivot design is flexible and can be
adapted to a wide range of site and wastewater characteristics. Center pivots are also
advantageous because they can distribute the wastewater quickly, uniformly, and with minimal
soil compaction. In a center pivot, an electrically driven lateral assembly extends from a center
point where the water is delivered, and the lateral circles around this point, spraying water. A
center pivot irrigation system is costed for all operations applying liquid manure to more than 30
acres of cropland under all regulatory options.
Technology Description
A center pivot generally uses 100*. to more than 150 pounds of pressure per square
inch (psi) to operate, which requires a 30- to 75-horsepower motor. The center pivot system is
constructed mainly of aluminum or galvanized steel and consists of the following main
components:
Pivot: The central point of the system around which the lateral assembly
rotates. The pivot is positioned on a concrete anchor and contains
various controls for operating the system, including timing and flow
rate. Wastewater from a lagoon, pond, or other storage structure is
pumped to the pivot as the initial step in applying the waste to the
land.
Lateral: A pipe and sprinklers that distribute the wastewater across the site
as it moves around the pivot, typically 6 to 10 feet above the
ground. The lateral extends out from the pivot and may consist of
one or more spans depending on the site characteristics. A typical
span may be from 80 to 250 feet long, whereas the entire lateral
may be as long as 2,600 feet.
5-77
-------
Tower: A structure located at the end point of each span that provides
support for the pipe. Each tower is on wheels and is propelled by
either an electrically driven motor, a hydraulic drive wheel, or liquid
pressure, which makes it possible for the entire; lateral to move
slowly around the pivot.
Figure 5.8.1-1 shows a schematic of a center pivot irrigation system.
Storage
Rjrrp—•>
Figure 5.8.1-1. Schematic of Center Pivot Irrigation System
All regulatory options are based on the installation of irrigation equipment a.t beef
feedlots, dairies, and heifer operations that land apply waste on site (i.e., Category 1 and 2
facilities). EPA developed frequency factors for center pivot irrigation based on the frequency
factors for an unlined pond or lagoon. EPA assumed that if a facility has an unlined pond or
lagoon on site, the facility would also already have some method of land application equipment to
land apply the wastewater from this lagoon. These frequency factors are presented in Section 6.0.
The cost model does not include costs for veal operations for center pivot irrigation because they
are assumed to have sufficient storage capacity and therefore the necessary irrigation equipment.
5-78
-------
Design
The center pivot is designed specifically for each operation, based on wastewater
volume and characteristics, as well as site characteristics such as soil type, parcel geometry, and
slope. The soil type (i.e., its permeability and infiltration rate) affects the selection of the water
spraying pattern. The soil composition (e.g., porous, tightly packed) affects tire size selection as
to whether it allows good traction and flotation. Overall site geometry dictates the location and
layout of the pivots, the length of the laterals, and the length and number of spans and towers.
Center pivots can be designed for sites with slopes of up to approximately 15 percent, although
this depends on the type of crop cover and methods used to alleviate runoff. The costs assume a
regular-shaped parcel (square), a water requirement of 7 gallons per minute per acre, and 1,000
operating hours per year.
5.8.2
Traveling Gun Irrigation
Based on industry expert opinion and literature, farms can irrigate relatively small
areas using a traveling gun (USDA NRCS, 1996). Traveling guns are also useful in oddly shaped
fields. These systems can be installed rapidly and are easily transported. However, the operation
of traveling gun systems is more labor intensive than the operation of center pivot systems.
Another disadvantage of traveling gun systems is low application efficiency. Water is sprayed
high into the air, causing wind and evaporation losses up to 30 percent (Clemson Extension,
2002). The traveling gun system requires higher capital, annual, labor, and energy costs per
irrigated acre than the center pivot system (Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, 2002). Despite
the disadvantages, traveling gun irrigation systems remain the best alternative for small acreages.
A traveling gun system is costed for all operations with less than 30 acres of cropland under all
regulatory options.
Technology Description
Traveling gun systems consist of a large sprinkler, a wheeled cart, a hose reel, and
an irrigation hose. The sprinkler is also referred to as the "gun" or "big gun." The sprinkler is
5-79
-------
moved during irrigation, hence the name "traveling gun." Traveling gun sprinklers discharge 50
to 1,000 gallons per minute with operating pressures from 60 to 120 psi (USDA NRCS,1996). A
traveling gun sprinkler is mounted on a wheeled cart to allow for mobility. An irrigation hose is
connected to the sprinkler on the wheeled cart and contained in a hose reel. There are two types
of traveling gun operations depending on the type or irrigation hose used:
Hard-Hose - This type of traveling gun operation utilizes a hard, high-pressure,
polyethylene hose. The hose is pulled out some distance from the hose reel. As
the sprinkler operates, the hose reel begins to reel in the cart and sprinkler.
Soft-Hose - This system may also be called a Cable-Tow system. A soft, flexible
hose similar to a fire hose is used. The entire hose must be unwound from the
hose reel before use. The wheeled cart is placed in the field and anchored by a
cable. A winch on the cart pulls reels the cable, pulling the cart closer to the
anchor. The lu>se drags behind the cart and must be manually reeled after use.
The sprinkler travels a straight path, wetting a 200-400 foot wide strip of land
(USDA NRCS, 1996). When one path is complete, the unit must be moved to an adjacent path to
make another pass at the field. This process is repeated until the entire field is irrigated.
EPA developed frequency factors for traveling gun irrigation based on the
frequency factors for an unlined pond or lagoon. These frequency factors are presented in
Section 6.0. EPA assumed that if a facility has an unlined pond or lagoon on site, the facility
would also akeady have some method of land application equipment to land apply the wastewater
from this lagoon. The cost model does not include costs for veal operations because they are
assumed to have sufficient storage capacity.
Design
The traveling gun is designed specifically for each operation, based on wastewater
volume and characteristics, as well as site characteristics such as soil type, parcel geometry, and
slope. The soil type and composition affects the selection of the water spraying volume.
5-80
-------
5.8.3
Beef and Dairy Irrigation Costs
The only variable the cost model uses to determine costs for a center pivot and
traveling gun irrigation systems are total acres irrigated.
Center Pivot
EPA derived annual arid capital costs for center pivots from cost curves created
from data available at a vendor web site (Zimmatic, Inc., 1999). Number of irrigated acres (61,
122, and 488) are plotted on the x-axis and costs (capital and annual) are plotted on the y-axis.
Capital costs include the pivot, lateral, towers, pumps, piping, generator and power units, and
erection. Annual costs include power consumption and routine maintenance of mechanical parts.
Table 5.8.3-1 presents the costs for each of these points.
Table 5.8.3-1
Costs for Data Points from Center Pivot Irrigation Cost Curves
Number of Irrigated Acres
61
122
488
Gapitel Costs
$58,741
$64,130
$122,414
Annual Costs
$3,453
$5,616
$11,559
Source: http://www.Zimmatic.com.
Traveling Gun
Traveling gun costs are based on information provided by Kifco, Inc., an
agricultural irrigation company. The cost model assumes that 250-gpm applicators would provide
adequate coverage for cropland comprising less than 30 acres. Table 5.8.3-2 presents the capital
costs for a 250-gpm applicator. Annual costs are estimated at five percent of the capital costs.
5-81
-------
Table 5.8.3-2
Costs for 250-gpm Liquid Applicators
1 Model
37M/1220
40A/1320
Flow Rate (gpm)
225-415'
250-480
Capital Cost
$28;990 r
$31,400
Source: (Kifco, 2002) """
•..:••::- ••:,'..' i-'U >•.;?.>. ;.u-r
Total Capital Costs
:v'i I'i,
' A polynomial curve with a regression coefficient of 1 'is drawn through the capital
cost points. The cost model uses the resulting curve to estimate costs for the various acreages.
The equation is:
where:
y
x
y = 0.166x2 + 57.958x + 54,588
Capital cost
Irrigated acreage.
Total Annual Costs
A logarithmic curve with a regression coefficient of 0.9947 is;drawn through the
annual cost points. The cost model uses the resulting curve to estimate costs for various
acreages. The equation is:
y = 3954 In (x)-13,033
where:
y
x
Annual cost
Irrigated acreage.
5-82
-------
Results
Appendix A, Tables A-12a and A-12b present the cost model results for
implementing center pivot or traveling gun irrigation systems at beef feedlots, dairies, and heifer
operations.
5.9
Transportation
Animal feeding operations use different methods of transportation to remove
excess manure waste and wastewater from the feedlot operation. The costs associated with
transporting excess waste off site are calculated using two methods: contract hauling waste or
purchasing transportation equipment. EPA evaluated both methods of transportation for all
regulatory options. The least expensive method for each model farm and regulatory option is
chosen as the basis of the costs. Hauling at swine and poultry operations is assumed to be
accomplished via contract hauling.
5.9.1
Technology Description
Many animal feeding operations use manure waste and wastewater on site as
fertilizer or irrigation water on cropland; however, nutrient management plans (discussed in
Section 5.6) require that facilities apply only the amount of nutrients agronomically required by
the crop. When a facility generates more nutrients in its manure waste and wastewater than can
be used for on-site application, they must transport the remaining manure waste and wastewater
off site.
Beef feedlots, dairies, swine operations, and poultry operations are divided into
three categories, as discussed in Section 1.3. Category 1 operations have sufficient cropland to
agronomically apply all of their generated waste on site. Category 2 operations do not have
sufficient cropland and may only agronomically apply a portion of their generated waste.
Category 3 operations have no cropland and must transport all of their waste off site. The number
5-83
-------
of operations in each category depends on the nutrient application requirements, because more
land is required for nitrogen-based application than for phosphorus-based application.
The amount of excess waste that requires transport depends on the nutrient basis
used for land application, as well as the practices and technologies employed at the facility (e.g.,
feeding strategies). Option 1 requires that animal waste be applied on a nitrogen basis to
cropland, and Options 2 through 7 require application on a phosphorus basis as dictated by site-
specific conditions. In general, the amount of waste transported off site increases under a
phosphorus-based application option. Section 4.9 discusses the methodology used to determine
the amount of excess waste at beef feedlots, dairies, swine operations, and poultry operations.
Manure is transported as either a solid or liquid material. The cost model assumes
that solid waste is transported before liquid waste because it is less expensive: to haul solid waste.
This assumption means that operations apply liquid manure (i.e., lagoon and pond effluents;) to
cropland on site before solid waste.
In addition, some operations are located in states that already require them to
apply manure to cropland on an agronomic nitrogen basis; therefore, these operations will not
incur additional transportation costs under the N-based scenario. The percentage of facilities that
are expected to incur transportation costs was based on EPA's Interim Final Report: State
Compendium: Programs and Regulatory Activities Related to Animal Feeding Operations -
Interim Final Report (EPA, 1999) and is discussed in detail in Section 6.0 of this report.
Contract Hauling
One method evaluated for transporting manure waste off site is contract hauling,
whereby the operation hires an outside firm to transport the excess waste. This method is
advantageous to facilities that do not have the necessary capacity to store excess waste on site or
the cropland acreage to agronomically apply the material. In addition, this method is useful for
operations that do not generate enough excess waste to warrant purchasing their own waste
transportation trucks. Contract haulers can transport waste from multiple operations.
5-84
-------
Equipment Purchase
Another method evaluated for transporting manure waste off site is to purchase
transportation equipment. In this method, the operation owner purchases the necessary trucks to
haul the waste to an off-site location. Depending on the type of waste transported, a solid waste
truck, a liquid tanker truck, or both types of trucks are required. In addition, the owner is
responsible for determining a suitable location for the waste, as well as all costs associated with
loading and unloading the trucks, driving the trucks to the off-site location, and maintaining the
trucks.
5.9.2
Design and Costs of Contract Hauling
In determining costs for the contract-hauling option, the cost model considered
three major factors:
1) Amount of waste transported;
2) Type of waste transported (semisolid or liquid); and
3) Location of the operation.
Additional factors that relate to these three major factors include:
• Hauling distance;
• Weight of the waste;
• Rate charged to haul waste ($/ton-mile); and
• Percentage of operations in each region and category that incur transport
costs.
Using these factors, the cost model uses the following three steps to determine
costs for a model farm:
Step 1) Determine constants, based on region, animal type, and waste type;
5-85
-------
Step 2) Determine the weight of the transported waste, accounting for
water losses during storage or composting; and
Step 3) Determine the annual waste transportation costs.
Each of these steps is explained in detail below.
Step 1) Determine constants, based on region, animal type, and waste type
Constants used in this evaluation include the hauling distance, the moisture content
of stockpiled manure, the moisture content of composted manure, and the hauling rate ($/ton-
mile).
Hauling Distance
The one-way hauling distance for a Category 2 or 3 operation depends on the
region in which it is located. The one-way hauling distance considers the size of the county,
whether the county has a potential for excess manure nutrients, and the proximity of other
counties that have a nutrient excess. The cost model assumes that Category 3 operations have
always transported all of their waste; however, the cost model also assumes that the distance
required for transport would increase under the P-based scenario. Therefore, the distance
assigned to Category 3, P-based facilities is an incremental distance, representing the difference in
distance a facility would have to transport under the P-based option. (For more details, see
Revised Transportation Distances for Category 2 and 3 Type Operations, Terra Tech, 2000.)
The P-based hauling distance is reduced where feeding strategies are used to
reduce swine manure-P by 40 percent. EPA assumes that if total manure P is reduced by 40
percent, facilities will not have to haul their excess manure as great a distance. The cost model
counted all major animal types in determining counties with nutrient excess. (Analysis based on
Kellogg, R. et al., 2000.) Table 5.9.2-1 presents the Category 2 and Category 3 hauling distances
by region.
5-86
-------
Table 5.9.2-1
Hauling Distances for Transportation
^ ';• •••••^•Region
Central
Mid-Atlantic
Midwest
Pacific
South
. One-Way fiauling Distance (miles) for
Category 2
N-Basis
11.0
5.5 .
6.5
12.5
6.0
P-Basis
16.5
30.5
10.0
21.5 .
14.5
P-Basis*
NA
18
NA
NA
NA
One-Way Hauling Distance (miles) for
Category 3
N-Basis
0
0
0
0
•: 0 "
P-Basis
5.5
25.0
3.5
9.0
8 5
P-Basis*
NA
18
NA
NA
NA
source: for detailed information on the calculation of one-way hauling distances, see Revised Transportation Distances for
Category 2and3 Type Operations. TetraTech, 2000. •>"•'•. , .
*P-Basis when feeding strategies are used to reduce total P by 40 percent.
Moisture Content of Waste -
Based on available information, the cost model assumes that the moisture content
of stockpiled manure is 35.4 percent and the moisture content of composted manure is 30.8
percent (Sweeten, J.M. and S.H. Amosson, 1995).
Hauling Rate
The $/ton-mile rates for liquid and solids wastes for Category 2 and 3 beef feedlots
and dairies are estimated based on information obtained from various contract haulers and
presented in Table 5.9.2-2. The hauling rates used for swine and poultry operations are presented
in Table 5.9.2-3.
5-87
-------
Table 5.9.2-2
Rates for Contract Hauling for Category 2 and 3 Beef Feedlots and Dairies
Type of Waste
Solid ($/ton-mile)
Liouid ($/ton-niile)
Category 2 Rates •
N-Based
Application
0.24
0.53
P-Based :
Application
0.15
0.10
.;.... Jtf-B.a]se3;-;'.;:';
Application
0
0
P=-Basfed
Application .
0.08
0.26
Source: For additional detail on the calculation of contract hauling rates, see Methodology, to Calculate Contract
Hauling Rates for Beef and Dairy Cost Model, ERG 2000.
Table 5.9.2-3
i
Hauling Rates for Category 2 and 3 Swine and Poultry Operations
Type of Waste
Liquid - First Mile ($/gallon-mile)
Liquid - Beyond First Mile ($/gallon-mile)
Solid - Less than 90 Miles ($/ton-mile)
Solid - 90 to 1230 Miles ($/ton-mile)
Solid - Beyond 1230 Miles ($/ton-mile)
• ' '. ; v. ,.-'"; • ' "Rate, •'.; •'•;'" V>V .:_ ' '
0.008
0.0013
0.10
0.23
0.18
Source: Tetra Tech, 2002.
Step 2) Determine the weight of the transported waste
The amount of waste to be transported is estimated as the sum of separated solids,
lagoon's pond effluent, lagoon's pond accumulated solids, and process and rainwater not applied
to land.
Step 3) Determine the annual cost of transporting the waste
The annual cost of hiring a contractor to haul the waste is based on the amount of
waste (in either semisolid or liquid form), the distance traveled, and the haul rate. The following
equation incorporates both the solid and liquid annual hauling costs:
5-88
-------
... Annual Cost = (Weight of Solids x Solid Hauling Rate x Hauling Distance Roimd-trip) +
(Weight of Liquids x Liquid Hauling Rate x Hauling Distance Roumi.trip)
There are no capital costs associated with contract hauling. All hauling costs for
swine and poultry operations are calculated using this basic approach for cdntract hauling.
5.9.3
Design and Cost of Purchase Equipment Transportation Option
In determining costs for the purchase truck transportation option, the cost model
considered three major factors:
1) Amount of transported waste;
2) Type of waste transported (semisolid or liquid); and
3) The location of the operation.
Additional factors that relate to these three major factors include:
•' Hauling distance;
• Number of hauling trips required per year;
• The waste volume;
• Average speed of the truck;
• Cost of fuel;
• Cost of maintenance;
• Cost of purchasing the truck;
* Cost for labor for the truck driver; and
• • Percentage of facilities in each region and category that incur transport
costs under the proposed regulatory options.
Using these factors, the cost model completes the following six steps to determine
costs for a model farm:
5-89
-------
Step 1) Determine constants, based on region, animal type, and waste type;
Step 2) • Determine the weight of the waste transported, accounting for
water losses during storage or composting;
Step 3) Determine the number of trucks and number of trips required to
haul all of the waste each year;
Step 4) Determine =the number of hours required to transport waste each
year;__. . _.
Step 5) Determine the purchase cost for the trucks required to transport the
"waste; and, .. - . - —.
Step 6) Determine the annual cost to transport the waste.
Each of these steps is explained in detail below.
Step 1) Determine constants, based on region, animal type, and waste type
Constants used in this evaluation include the hauling distance, the average speed of
the truck, the moisture content of stockpiled manure, the moisture content of composted manure,
the hours spent hauling per day, the loading and unloading time, the fuel rate, the maintenance
rate, the hourly hauling rate, the volume of waste the truck can haul, and the purchase price of the
truck.
Hauling Distance
The one-way hauling distance for an operation depends on the region in which it is
located and what category operation is being evaluated. For each region, the average distance the
waste must be hauled varies according to regional factors. Table 5.9.2-1 presents these distances.
5-90
-------
1995).
Average Speed
The average speed of the truck is estimated to be 35 miles per hour (USEPA,
Moisture Content of Waste
Based on available information, the moisture content of stockpiled manure and
composted manure is estimated to be 35.4 percent and 30.8 percent, respectively Sweeten, J.M.
and S.H. Amosson, 1995). .......
Working Schedule
The cost model estimated that one laborer requires 25 minutes to load and unload
the truck and hauls waste for 7 hours per day (USEPA, 1995).
Fuel Rate
The diesel fuel is estimated to cost $1.35 per gallon (Jewell, W.J., P.E. Wright,
N.P. Fleszar, G. Green, A. Safinski, A. Zucker, 1997).
Maintenance Rate .
The estimated maintenance rates for liquid and solid waste trucks are $0.63 per
hauling mile and $0.50 per hauling mile, respectively (Jewell, W.J., P.E. Wright, N.P. Fleszar, G.
Green, A. Safinski, A. Zucker, 1997; USEPA, 1995).
Labor Rate
The rate used in the cost model for the laborer to load, unload, and haul the waste
is $10 per hour.
5-91
-------
Capacity and Prices of Trucks
The size of the solid waste trucks vary, depending on the amount of waste that is
>' I. : ---".i ; i- ," • • ; ••• • -- - " ': • : f
hauled. The standard sizes and purchase prices for solid waste trucks used in the cost model are
(USEPA, 1995):
7-cubic-yard truck = $91,728
10-cubic-yard truck =$137,593
- ' " , "•'•' !' ''.•''.: 'l:>Jj t. .:'''. . • • • '! ',' !
15-cubic-yard truck = $183,457
25-cubic-yard truck = $241,054
The size of the liquid waste trucks also varies, depending on the amount of waste
that is hauled. The standard sizes and purchase prices for liquid waste trucks used in the cost
model are (USEPA, 1995):
1,600-gallon truck = $84,262
2,500-gallon track = $113,061
4,000-gallon truck = $140,792
Step 2) Determine the weight of the waste transported
The amount of waste to be transported is estimated as the sum of separated solids,
lagoon's pond effluent, lagoon's pond accumulated solids, and process and rainwater not applied
to land.
Step 3) Determine the number of trips required to haul all of the waste per year
To determine the number of trips per year required to haul all of the waste, the
cost model performs the following calculations. First, the size of the truck is determined. Then,
the maximum possible number of trips per year is calculated, given the hauling schedule arid the
5-92
-------
number of days the truck is available for transport per year. A test is then performed to see if the
truck size selected is large enough to transport all of the waste requiring transport within the time
frame calculated as the maximum number of trips per year. If the track is not large enough, then
the cost model assumes that multiple trucks are purchased, and recalculates the equations based
on the larger capacity.
The equation for the maximum number of trips per year is:
Maximum Trips / yr =
(Haul Schedule x Haul Days)
(Truck Loading Time + Track Unloading Time -t- Track Haul Time)
The capacity of the truck is determined through an iterative process that
substitutes the size of the track (10 cubic yards (CY), 15 CY, and 25 CY) and the number of
tracks (1 or 2) into the following equation until the number of trips per year is greater than the
maximum number of trips per year:
Number of Trips/yr =
Solid Waste (as collected)
(Number of Tracks x Capacity of Truck)
The equation for the actual number of trips per year is:
Actual Trips/ yr
Solid Waste (as collected)
(Number of Trucks x Capacity of Truck)
(Note: The number of tracks is rounded up to the nearest whole number.)
Step 4) Determine the number of hours required to transport waste each year
The number of hours required to transport all of the waste each year is based on
the hauling time, the loading and unloading time, and the actual number of hauling trips per year,
as. shown below:
5-93
-------
Transport Hours = (Truck Loading Time + Truck Unloading Time + Truck Haul Time) x Number of Trips
Step 5) Determine the purchase cost of the trucks required to transport the waste
The purchase cost of the truck(s) depends on the number of trucks needed arid the
cost for that size of truck, as shown below:
Purchase Cost = Number of Trucks x Cost of Truck
Step 6) Determine the annual cost to transport the waste
The annual operating and maintenance cost for owning and operating the trucks is
based on the fuel spent, the maintenance rate per mile driven, and the labor costs. This is
calculated for both the liquid waste transport and the solid waste transport. The equation for the
annual cost is:
Annual Cost = (Maintenance Rate x Hauling Distance Round.trip x Number of Trips + Transport
Hours x Labor Rate + Hauling Distance Round.,rip x Number of Trips / Fuel Rate) x Number of Trucks
5.9.4
Transportation Cost Test
When evaluating costs to transport waste off site, the cost model considered
purchasing a truck to transport waste and hiring a contractor to haul waste as the two scenarios
for the model beef feedlots, dairies, and veal operations. Because the weight and volume of the
manure directly impact the transportation costs, each scenario was also considered with
composting the waste prior to hauling and without composting. This section discusses the test
used to determine which scenario is least costly for each model farm.
5-94
-------
Purpose of the Cost Test
When animal feeding operations are unable to apply all of their waste on site at the
appropriate agronomic rate, the waste is transported off site to a location where the waste is
applied at the agronomic rate. EPA considered two methods of off-site transport: 1) hiring a
contractor to haul the waste; or 2) purchasing a truck to move the waste without third-party
assistance. In addition, animal feeding operations can choose to compost their waste before
hauling to reduce the weight and volume of the waste and to improve the quality of the end
product (see Section 5.12). EPA assumes that operations will choose the transportation and
composting pair that is least expensive., To determine which method a beef feedlot, dairy,-or veal
operation will choose, the cost model conducts a test that compares the costs annualized over 10
years: , ; - - ~ .
For each model farm that transports waste off site under Options 1 through 4,6,
and 7, the cost model assumes that the-.operation uses one of four transportation scenarios:
1) Composting with contract haul;
2) Composting with purchase truck;
3) No composting with contract haul; and
4) No composting with purchase truck.
For Option 5A, only transportation scenarios with composting are considered.
Cost Test Methodology
The transportation scenario that is costed for each operation is the least costly
when annualized over 10 years. To determine this, each transportation scenario is costed
separately. The cost for each transportation scenario is then added to the weighted farm costs to
create four possible model farm costs, with capital costs and annual costs. Each of these is
annualized, using the following equation:
A(n) = P x I x (l +1)° / [(1 + I)n - 1] + A
5-95
-------
where:
A(n)
P
I
n
A
Annualized cost over n years
Capital cost
Interest rate ,, ., ..
Number of years
Annual cost.
The least expensive annualized cost of the four transportation scenarios is selected as the
preferred scenario.
5.9.5
Results
Appendix A, Table A-13a presents the cost model results for transporting manure
waste using contract hauling or purchasing transport equipment when applying on a nitrogen basis
for beef feedlots, dairies, and heifer operations. Appendix A, Table A-13b presents the cost
model results for transporting manure waste using contract hauling or purchasing transport
equipment when applying on a phosphorus basis for beef feedlots, dairies, and heifer operations.
Appendix B presents the selected transportation method for each of these model farms.
5.10
Ground-Water Assessment and Monitoring
Storing or treating animal waste at or below the ground surface has the potential
to contaminate ground water. Ground-water wells may be used at animal feeding operations to
monitor ground-water contamination. For Option 3A/3B, a ground-water assessment is used to
determine whether a direct hydrologic connection to surface water exists. Ground-water well
installation and associated monitoring is then costed for all model farms where there is a direct
hydrologic connection between ground water and surface water.
5-96
-------
5.10.1
Technology Description
Manure and waste that infiltrates into the soil, and is not taken up by crops, may
i
contaminate underlying aquifers with nutrients, bacteria, viruses, hormones, and salts. Irrigation
of manure may also contaminate aquifers with salt and high levels of total dissolved solids. In
turn, such manure and waste may contaminate surface water which has a direct hydrologic
connection to the ground water. Ground-water wells can be installed to monitor for these
pollutants.
Geologic conditions, as well as the elevation and shape of the water table, vary
based on region. A hydrogeologic site investigation may occur prior to well installation to
determine site conditions and to determine the number and location of samples as well as the
sampling .depth.
5.10.2
Design and Costs
. The design for the ground-water wells does not vary according to animal type or
size of facility. It is assumed that each facility determined to have a direct hydrologic connection
will install four 50-foot ground-water monitoring wells, one up-gradient and three down-gradient
from the manure storage facility, as shown in Figure 5.10.2-1.
5-97
-------
Manure
Top of casing
Groundwater -"
monitoring
well
(up-gradient)
-•-..^___
_s_
5
_i
storage facility
(manure stockpile)
_ Ground / _
.surface ^*" " -^
Groundwater
monitoring
well
(down-gradient)
Water table
C-
JZ_
t / /
5
Q'
Figure 5.10.2-1. Schematic of Ground-Water Monitoring Wells
Assessment of Crop Field and Ground-Water Links to Surface Water
Because the assessment of ground-water links to surface water requires
professional expertise, EPA estimates pay rates of $75 per hour for field work and report writing,
and $65 per hour for research related to this task. Assessment activities include a limited review
of local geohydrology, topography, proximity to surface waters, and current animal waste
management practices. EPA estimates that the assessment activities would require 2 days of
work at the operation, 2 days of office work, and 2 days to compile the data into a final report. In
addition, EPA assumes that a farmhand spends 8 hours assisting in the assessment. EPA
estimated that miscellaneous expenses, including travel time, photocopying, purchasing, maps,
and report generation are 15 percent of total costs. This one-time assessment does not vary with
the size or type of operation; therefore, the cost is the same for each model farm. The one-time
labor cost does not vary by model farm and is calculated as follows:
5-98
-------
geographic location, method of manure collection, and the type of waste management system.
Table 5.13.2-1 summarizes the inputs used for both the covered lagoon and complete mix
digesters. User-selected input values are npted with the letter "S" in brackets, [S]. Default input
values that are selected are noted with an [S,d]. -
The representative region used for the large dairy is Tulare County, California.
The model farm is assumed to have 1,450 cows, 435 heifers, and 435 calves in free stalls. The
farm is evaluated for both a covered lagoon digester and a complete mix digester.
Based on the input data provided, FarmWare calculates the influent and effluent
waste to and from the digester and the specific design and operating parameters. For the large
dairy, the FarmWare model calculates a total manure generation of about 187,000 Ib/day. With
an average volatile solids (VS) production of 8.5 Ib/day per 1,000 pounds of animal, the
FarmWare program estimates a total VS production of about 18,000 Ib/day. The model also
generates the design specifications for each system as shown in Table 5.13.2-2.
5-122
-------
A complete mix digester is a heated, constant volume, mechanically-mixed tank
with a gas-impermeable collection cover. Manure waste is preheated and added daily to the
digester, where it is intermittently mixed to prevent formation of a crust and to keep solids in
suspension. Average manure retention times range from 15 to 20 days. The gas-tight cover
maintains anaerobic conditions inside the tank and collects the biogas through attached pipes.
The heat generated by burning the collected biogas is used to heat the digester (USEPA, 1997a).
A covered lagoon digester is the simplest type of methane recovery system. This
digester consists of two basins, one of which is topped with a gas-impermeable cover. This
floating impermeable cover is typically made of high density polyethylene (HDPE) or
polypropylene. The cover may be designed as a "bank-to-bank" cover, which spans the entire
lagoon surface with a fabricated floating cover, or as a "modular" cover, in which the cover
comprises smaller sections. Biogas collects under the cover and is recovered for use in generating
electricity. The second basin is uncovered and is used to store effluent from the digester. Often.,
manure waste is treated through a solids separator prior to the covered lagoon digester to ensure
the solids content is less than 2 percent (USEPA, 1996).
Selection of the type of digester is dictated by the percent solids expected hi the
manure waste. To estimate the costs for a digester system, dairies that operate flush cleaning
systems are assumed to use a covered lagoon system following a settling basin, while dairies that
operate scrape systems are assumed to use a complete mix digester following a settling basin.
The design of the digester and methane recovery system is based on the AgSTAR FarmWare
model (EPA, 1997a). The design and cost of the concrete settling basins are discussed hi Section
5.2.
5.13.2
Design
Dairy
Inputs to the FarmWare model are based on the model farm characteristics for a
large dairy. The FarmWare model requires input data on the livestock type, number of animals,
5-121
-------
5.13.1
Technology Description
Anaerobic digestion is the decomposition of organic matter in the absence of
oxygen and nitrates. Under these anaerobic conditions", the"brganic material is stabilized and is
converted biologically to a range of end products, including methane and carb'on dioxide.
Anaerobic treatment reduces BOD* odor, and pathogens, and generates biogas (methane) that can
be used as a fuel.- The methane-rich gas produced during digestion may-be collected as a source
of energy to offset the cost of operating the digester. Liquid and sludge from the system are
applied to on-site cropland as fertilizer or irrigation water, or are transported off site
'Anaerobic digesters are specially designed tanks or concrete basinTthat can
anaerobically decompose volatile solids in the manure to produce biogas. Manure and/or process
wastewater may be routed to these digesters for storage and treatment. Depending on the waste
characteristics, one of the following main types of artaerpbic digesters may ie used:;
Plug flow;
Complete mix; and
Covered lagoon. ,
Plug flow digesters are applicable for treating wastes with high (>10 percent) solids content, while
covered lagoons are appropriate for treating wastes with low (<2 percent) solids content.
Complete mix digesters are used for treating wastes with a solids content between 2 and 10
percent. The plug flow and the complete mix digesters are applicable in virtually all climates as
they use supplemental heat to ensure optimal temperature. Covered lagoons generally do not use
supplemental heat and are most effectively used in warmer climates (USEPA, 1996).
A plug flow digester is a constant volume, flow-through long tank with a gas-
impermeable expandable cover. Manure waste is added to the digester daily, slowly pushing the
older manure plugs through the tank. Average manure retention times range from 15 to 20 days.
The gas-impermeable cover maintains anaerobic conditions inside the tank and collects the biogas
through attached pipes (USEPA, 1997b).
5-120
-------
At poultry operations, annual costs include both operation and maintenance costs.
It is assumed that a sufficient supply of amendments is available on site. EPA estimates that
mortality transportation, loading, and turning in compost bins requires 90 hours per year. The
value of tractor usage is $30/hour, and the labor rate is set at $10/hour. The capital cost of the
mortality composting facility is multiplied by .02 to estimate the annual maintenance cost of the
facility. The total annual cost for mortality composting is therefore determined from the following
equation:
Annual Cost = 90 x (30 + 10) + .02 x Capital Cost
5.12.4
Results
model farm.
5.13
Appendix A, Table A-15 presents the cost model results for composting at each
Anaerobic Digestion with Energy Recovery
Anaerobic digesters are sometimes used at animal feeding operations to
biologically decompose manure while controlling odor and generating energy. In the United
States, as of 1998 there were about 94 digesters that were installed or were planned for working
dairy, swine, and caged-layer poultry operations (Lusk, P., 1998). Of these 94 digesters, more
than 60 percent of plug flow and complete mix digesters and 12 percent of the covered lagoon
digesters have failed (Lusk, P., 1998). Many of these failures were of systems constructed prior
to 1984; since that time, more simplified digester designs have been implemented, which have
greatly improved reliability. Very few dairies in the United States have operable digesters with
energy recovery.
Anaerobic digestion with energy recovery is used as the cost basis for Option 6.
Under this option, only large dairies and large swine operations are costed for installation of an
anaerobic digester, with energy recovery system. ;
5-119
-------
The total capital cost for mortality composting structures varies with the size of
the operation, and is calculated as follows:
Capital Cost = Mortality Volume x $7.50 per square foot.
5 ft depth
Total Annual Costs
The volume of wheat straw required is used to determine the cost of the
composting amendments. The total volume of the compost pile is used to calculate the labor
costs for turning. The following equation is used to calculate the composting annual costs
(Sweeten, J.M. and S.H. Amosson, 1995):
Annual Cost = ($2.69/ton x Volume,.,,,,,.,.,^) + ($72.68/ton x VolumewhK1,sllaw) +
($1.75/100cf x Volume^,) - ($1.70 x Selling Weight/2000)
where:
Volumecolleoted
Volumewheatstraw=
$1.75
Volumewater
$1.70
Selling weight
= Volume of manure collected for compost
Volume of wheat straw added to balance carbon/nitrogen
ratio
= Cost of water per 100 cubic feet
= Volume of water added to mixture
= Net value of compost as a fertilizer, subtracting
value of manure as fertilizer (Sweeten, J.M. and
S.H. Amosson, 1995)
= Final composted weight of manure mixture.
Manure solids are expected to be reduced after composting; however, with the
addition of the carbon amendments, the weight of compost to be transported or land applied is
not significantly different than that manure that is not composted. The cost model calculates these
differences, however, and considers them in calculating transportation costs, described in Section
5.9.
5-118
-------
Table 5.12.3-1
Unit Costs for Composting
Unit
Windrow turning equipment
(Valoraction 5 1 0 rotary drum turner
tractor attachment)
Thermometers
Turning labor
Water
Value of manure fertilizer
(based on nitrogen and phosphorus)
Value of composted manure
(based on nitrogen and phosphorus)
Cost (1997)
. $8,914
$242.27 (for set of two)
$2.69/ton
$0.00203 per gallon
$4.99 per ton
$6.69 per ton
$72.68/ton
Source
On-Farm Composting Handbook,
NRAES-54
Omega Engineering
On-Farm Composting Handbook,
NRAES-54
EPA, Technical Development
Document for Metal Products and
Machinery Effluent Limitation
Guidelines, in progress.
Manure Quality and Economics, J.M.
Sweeten, S.H. Amosson, and B.W.
Auverman.
Case's Agworld.com
Capital costs for mortality composting are calculated assuming a depth of 5 feet.
Then, the square footage of the composting facility is calculated from the volume. The cost
model uses a construction cost of $7.50 per square foot for mortality compost facilities, based on
the price of a poultry drystack/composter with concrete floor and wooden walls (USDA NRCS,
2002a). The capital cost is determined with the following equation:
Capital Cost = MortVolume -*• 5 x 7.50
Total Capital Costs
The following equation is used to calculate the windrow composting capital cost:
Capital Cost = Windrow Turning Equipment + Thermometers
= $8,914 + $242.27
The total capital costs for windrow composting is $9,156.27.
5-117
-------
Compost Recipe
As stated in Section 5.12.1, manure must be mixed with composting amendments
to obtain the proper C:N ratio and moisture content. The cost model assumes that wheat straw is
used as the composting amendment. Wheat straw has a moisture content of 10 percent and. a C:N
ratio of 130. Manure collected from drylots has a moisture content of 35.4 percent. The carbon
content is calculated from the volatile solids composition of manure. It is estimated that manure
has a volatile solids composition of 564.6 Ib/ton (Sweeten, J.M. and S.H. Amosson, 1995). The
carbon content is calculated using the following equation (USDA NRCS, 1996):
Carbon.
Volatile Solidsmanure = 564.6
1.8 1.8
= 314
The nitrogen content of manure is estimated to be 25.71 Ib/ton (Sweeten, J.M. and S.H.
Amosson, 1995). The carbon and nitrogen contents are converted to a percent basis. The C:N
ratio of the manure is calculated using the percent composition and the volume of manure. Wheat
straw and water are added to the compost mix until the C:N ratio is between 25:1 and 40:1 and
the moisture content is between 40 and 65 percent. The cost model simulates this method in the
composting cost module, performing an iteration to determine the proper mix of manure, wheat
straw, and water.
5.12.3
Costs
Capital costs for windrow composting include turning equipment and
thermometers to monitor the pile temperature. Annual costs include the labor to turn the pile and
any required composting amendment (hi this case, wheat straw and water). Additionally, EPA
assumes that operations would be able to recoup some costs of composting by selling composted
manure. EPA assumes that the cost recouped equals the difference between the selling price of
uncomposted manure and composted manure. Table 5.12.3-1 presents the 1997 unit costs for
these items.
5-116
-------
50 percent (see Section 5.1). For beef and heifer feedlots, the additional volume added to the
compost pile from the settling basin is the annual solids in runoff multiplied by the settling
efficiency.
Volume Reduction •
One of the major benefits of composting is waste volume reduction, which can
reduce transportation costs. Finished compost is estimated to contain 30.8 percent moisture
(Sweeten, J.M. and S.H. Amosson, 1995). This moisture content is used in the following
equation to determine the weight of finished compost:
Final Weight = Initial Weight x
(1 - Initial Moisture)
(1 - Final Moisture)
Mortality Composting for Swine and Poultry Operations
The volume needed for mortality composting includes the dead animals and the
other materials included in the compost mix. This mix of animals and compost ingredients is
addressed in the cost model by using the factor of 2 cubic feet per pound of dead bird in the
following equation:.
MortVolume = nohead * deadlen x deadwt x pctdead x 2 x 1.5
where:
MortVolume
Nohead
Deadlen
Deadwt
Pctdead
2
1.5
Total volume required, ft3
Number of animals
Lifespan of the animal, days/cycle
Market weight of the animal, Ibs/head
Mortality rate (%/cycle expressed as a decimal fraction)
Primary plus secondary storage cubic feet per pound of
dead animal (Barker, J.C., 2000)
Safety factor for catastrophic events.
5-115
-------
excreted manure is the same as in the collected manure, the volume of manure collected from the
drylot can be calculated using a mass balance on solids using the following equations:
Volume Solids roUccted = Volume SolidSe^ed
Volume Solids = Total Volume x ( 1 - Moisture) "
Volumecollected (1 - Moisture^^J = Volume^^ (1 - MoistureexcrctKl) ;' ''' '
Volumecollected =
..... "
1 - Moistureexcreted)]
- Molsturecolleoted)
! •:>• "'" The cost model estimates that manure collected from the drylot has a moisture
content of 35.4 percent (Sweeten, J.M. and S.H. Amosson, 1995). The values of the parameters
used to compute the volume of manure are contained in the manure reference table and cost run
information in the cost model, i ' , . .. t
Some of the manure solids that accumulate on drylots are lost in the runoff from
the feedlot before the waste is composted; therefore, the solids lost in runoff are subtracted from
the total volume of manure. The amount of solids lost in runoff is estimated at 1 .5 percent of the
total drylot runoff (MWPS, 1985).
Settling Basins
Option 5 A includes the addition of separated solids from the settling basin to the
compost pile. Because wastes from dairy flush barns have a high moisture content, they are
generally not composted; however, the settled solids from sedimentation basins can be added to
the compost pile. Therefore, a fraction of the manure from mature dairy cows barns is added to
the compost pile after some drying has occurred. For beef feedlots, only runoff enters the
sedimentation basins; therefore, a fraction of the solids entering the basin as runoff is added to the
compost pile.
For dairies, the cost model calculates the amount of separated solids by computing
the amount of manure generated in the barn and parlor and multiplying by the settling efficiency of
5-114
-------
Tractor
Windrow
Turning
Equipment
Figure 5.12.2-1. Windrow Composting
Drylots
The cost model assumes that all beef cattle, dairy calves, and heifers are kept on
drylots. Manure from drylots is periodically scraped and moved to the compost pile. The amount
of manure generated (as-excreted) is calculated using the information and equations in Section
4.6. The volume of manure collected from the drylot is less than the as-excreted volume because
the manure moisture content decreases on the drylot. Because the volume of solids in the as-
5-113
-------
Windrow Composting for Beef Feedlots, Dairies, and Heifer Operations
Windrow composting systems are designed for use at beef feedlots, heifer
operations, and dairies. Manure and other raw materials are formed into windrows and
periodically turned. The size and shape of the windrow depends on the type of turning equipment
used by the site. The cost model assumes that sites use a tractor attachment for turning made by
i '. ~:\r. ."'"'' - -
Valoraction, Incorporated (NRAES, 1992) (see Figure 5.12.2-1). This type of windrow turner
can turn windrows 10 feet wide by 4.2 feet tall. Windrow composting requires less labor and
equipment than other types of composting and allows greater flexibility with respect to location
and composting amendments.
Beef feedlots and heifer operations can compost the manure collected from the
drylots. Because dairies and veal operations use flush and hose systems, their waste is too wet for
composting. However, the manure from calves and heifers kept on drylots at dairies can be
composted. Separated solids from sedimentation basins can also be added to the compost pile.
A typical mortality composting facility consists of two stages, primary and
secondary (USDA NRCS, 1996). The. first stage consists of equally sized bins in which the dead
animals and amendments are initially added and allowed to compost. The mixture is moved from
the first stage to the second stage, or secondary digester, when the compost temperature begins to
decline. The second stage can also consist of a number of bins, but it is usually just one bin or
concrete area that allows compost to be stacked with a volume equal to or greater than the sum of
the first stage bins. The design volume for each stage should be based on peak disposal
requirements for the animal operation.
Volume of Manure .
The cost model calculates the volume of waste transferred to the compost pile
from drylots and from settling basins.
5-112
-------
with strong odors are produced. Aerating the pile also helps to remove excess heat and trapped
gases from the composting pile.
Composting time and efficiency are affected by the amount of oxygen, the energy
source (carbon) and amount of nutrients (nitrogen) in the raw materials, the moisture content, and
the particle size and porosity of the materials. The amounts of carbon, .nitrogen, and moisture
should be properly balanced in the initial compost mix. Moisture levels should be in the range of
40 to 65 percent. Water"is necessary "toTsupport biological activity; however, if the moisture
content is too high, water displaces air in the pore.spaces_and thej>ile can become anaerobic.
Moisture content gradually decreases during the composting period. -The carbon to nitrogen ratio
(C:N) should be between 20:1 and 40:1. If the C:N ratio is too low, the carbon is used before all
the nitrogen is stabilized and the excess nitrogen can volatilize as ammonia and cause odor
problems. If the ratio is too high, the composting process slows as nitrogen becomes the limiting
nutrient. Manure typically needs to be mixed with drier, carbonaceous material to obtain the
desired moisture and C:N levels.
The length of time required for composting depends on the materials used, the
composting management practices, and the desired compost characteristics. Composting is
judged to be complete by characteristics related to its use and handling such as C:N ratio, oxygen
demand, temperature, and odor. A curing period of about one month during which resistant
compounds, organic acids, and large particles are further decomposed, follows composting.
5.12.2
Design
The cost methodology for all considered options included windrow composting at
beef feedlots, dairies, and heifer operations. If the volume reduction resulting from composting
resulted in a more cost effective option, then composting was selected as a waste management
technology. The cost methodology for swine and poultry operations included mortality
composting under ground water options. Each of these composting methods are described below.
5-111
-------
50 percent (see Section 5.1). For beef and heifer feedlots, the additional volume added to the
compost pile from the settling basin is the annual solids in runoff .multiplied by the settling
efficiency.
Volume Reduction
One of the major benefits of composting is waste volume reduction, which can
reduce transportation costs. Finished compost is estimated to contain 30.8 percent moisture
(Sweeten, J.M. and S.H. Amosson, 1995). This moisture content is used in the following
equation to determine the weight of finished compost:
Final Weight = Initial Weight x
(1 - Initial Moisture)
(1 - Final Moisture)
Mortality Composting for Swine and Poultry Operations
The volume needed for mortality composting includes the dead animals and the
other materials included in the compost mix. This mix of animals and compost ingredients is
addressed in the cost model by using the factor of 2 cubic feet per pound of dead bird in the
following equation:.
MortVolume = nohead •*• deadlen x deadwt x pctdead x 2 x i .5
where:
MortVolume
Nohead
Deadlen
Deadwt
Pctdead
2
1.5
Total volume required, ft3
Number of animals
Lifespan of the animal, days/cycle
Market weight of the animal, Ibs/head
Mortality rate (%/cycle expressed as a decimal fraction)
Primary plus secondary storage cubic feet per pound of
dead animal (Barker, J.C., 2000)
Safely factor for catastrophic events.
5-115
-------
Compost Recipe
As stated in Section 5.12.1, manure must be mixed with composting amendments
to obtain the proper C:N ratio and moisture content The cost model assumes that wheat straw is
used as the composting amendment. Wheat straw has a moisture content of 10 percent and a C:N
ratio of 130. Manure collected from drylots has a moisture content of 35.4 percent. The carbon
content is calculated from the volatile solids composition of manure. It is estimated that manure
has a volatile solids composition of 564.6 Ib/ton (Sweeten, J.M. and S.H. Amosson, 1995). The
carbon content is calculated using the following equation (USDA NRCS, 1996):
Carbon.
Volatile Solidsmanure _ 564.6
1.8 ~ 1.8
= 314
The nitrogen content of manure is estimated to be 25.71 Ib/ton (Sweeten, J.M. and S.H.
Amosson, 1995). The carbon and nitrogen contents are converted to a percent basis. The C:N
ratio of the manure is calculated using the percent composition and the volume of manure. Wheat
straw and water are added to the compost mix until the C:N ratio is between 25:1 and 40:1 and
the moisture content is between 40 and 65 percent. The cost model simulates this method in the
composting cost module, performing an iteration to determine the proper mix of manure, wheat
straw, and water.
5.12.3
Costs
Capital costs for windrow composting include turning equipment and
thermometers to monitor the pile temperature. Annual costs include the labor to turn the pile and
any required composting amendment (in this case, wheat straw and water). Additionally, EPA
assumes that operations would be able to recoup some costs of composting by selling composted
manure. EPA assumes that the cost recouped equals the difference between the selling price of
uncomposted manure and composted manure. Table 5.12.3-1 presents the 1997 unit costs for
these items.
5-116
-------
Table 5.12.3-1
Unit Costs for Composting
•J'4- ••--..,;•>• • Unit' • "-.'': •'.'_'
Windrow turning equipment
(Valoraction 510 rotary drum turner
tractor attachment)
Thermometers
Turning labor
Water
Value of manure fertilizer
(based on nitrogen and phosphorus)
Value of composted manure
(based on nitrogen and phosphorus)
Wheat straw
, • ^Crtsft^SST)/,;--^'^-?
. $8,914
$242.27 (for set of two)
$2.69/ton
$0.00203 per gallon
j
$4.99 per ton
$6.69 per ton
$72.68/ton
•.;, ••- :...-• -. -_,,;.. S6u^;,.v*:e!;;; :',
On-Farm Composting Handbook,
NRAES-54
Omega Engineering
On-Farm Composting Handbook,
NRAES-54
EPA, Technical Development
Document for Metal Products and
Machinery Effluent Limitation
Guidelines, in progress.
Manure Quality and Economics, J.M.
Sweeten, S.H. Amosson, and B.W.
Auverman.
Case's Agworld.com
Capital costs for mortality composting are calculated assuming a depth of 5 feet.
Then, the square footage of the composting facility is calculated from the volume. The cost
model uses a construction cost of $7.50 per square foot for mortality compost facilities, based on
the price of a poultry drystack/composter with concrete floor and wooden walls (USDA NRCS,
2002a). The capital cost is determined with the following equation:
Capital Cost = MortVolume * 5 x 7.50
Total Capital Costs
The following equation is used to calculate the windrow composting capital cost:
Capital Cost = Windrow Turning Equipment + Thermometers
= $8,914+ $242.27
The total capital costs for windrow composting is $9,156.27.
5-117
-------
The total capital cost for mortality composting structures varies with the size of
the operation, and is calculated as follows:
Capital Cost = Mortality Volume x $7.50 per square foot.
5 ft depth
Total Annual Costs
The volume of wheat straw required is used to determine the cost of the
composting amendments. The total volume of the compost pile is used to calculate the labor
costs for turning. The following equation is used to calculate the composting annual costs
(Sweeten, J.M. and S.H. Amosson, 1995):
Annual Cost = ($2.69/ton x Volume^,,,,) + ($72.68/ton x VolumewheatsMW) +
($1.75/1 OOcfx Volume^) - ($1.70 x Selling Weight/2000)
where:
Volumecollected
Volumewheatstraw=
$1.75
Volumewater
$1.70
Selling weight
= Volume of manure collected for compost
Volume of wheat straw added to balance carbon/nitrogen
ratio
= Cost of water per 100 cubic feet
= Volume of water added to mixture
= Net value of compost as a fertilizer, subtracting
value of manure as fertilizer (Sweeten, J.M. and
S.H. Amosson, 1995)
= Final composted weight of manure mixture.
Manure solids are expected to be reduced after composting; however, with the
addition of the carbon amendments, the weight of compost to be transported or land applied is
not significantly different than that manure that is not composted. The cost model calculates these
differences, however, and considers them in calculating transportation costs, described in Section
5.9.
5-118
-------
At poultry operations, annual costs include both operation and maintenance costs.
It is assumed that a sufficient supply of amendments is available on site. EPA estimates that
mortality transportation, loading, and turning in compost bins requires 90 hours per year. The
value of tractor usage is $30/hour, and the labor rate is set at $10/hour. The capital cost of the
mortality composting facility is multiplied by .02 to estimate the annual maintenance cost of the
facility. The total annual cost for mortality composting is therefore determined from the following
equation:
Annual Cost = 90 x (30+10) + .02 x Capital Cost
5.12.4
Results
model farm.
Appendix A, Table A-15 presents the cost model results for composting at each
5.13
Anaerobic Digestion with Energy Recovery
Anaerobic digesters are sometimes used at animal feeding operations to
biologically decompose manure while controlling odor and generating energy. In the United
States, as of 1998 there were about 94 digesters that were installed or were planned for working
dairy, swine, and caged-layer poultry operations (Lusk, P., 1998). Of these 94 digesters, more
than 60 percent of plug flow and complete mix digesters and 12 percent of the covered lagoon
digesters have failed (Lusk, P., 1998). Many of these failures were of systems constructed prior
to 1984; since that time, more simplified digester designs have been implemented, which have
greatly improved reliability. Very few dairies in the United States have operable digesters with
energy recovery.
Anaerobic digestion with energy recovery is used as the cost basis for Option 6.
Under this option, only large dairies and large swine operations are costed for installation of an
anaerobic digester, with energy recovery system.
5-119
-------
5.13.1
Technology Description
Anaerobic digestion is the decomposition of organic matter in the absence of
oxygen and nitrates. Under these anaerobic conditions, the "organic material is" stabilized and is
converted biologically to a range of end products, including methane and carbon dioxide.
Anaerobic treatment reduces BOD, odor, and pathogens, and generates biogas (methane) that can
be used as a fuel. The methane-rich gas produced during digestion may be collected as a source
of energy to offset the cost of operating the digester. Liquid and sludge from the system are
applied to on-site cropland as fertilizer or irrigation water, or are transported off site.
Anaerobic digesters are specially designed tanks or concrete basins "that can
anaerobically decompose volatile solids in the manure to produce biogas. Manure and/or process
wastewater may be routed to these digesters for storage and treatment. Depending on the waste
characteristics, one of the following main types of anaerobic digesters may J>e used:
Plug flow;
Complete mix; and
Covered lagoon.
Plug flow digesters are applicable for treating wastes with high (>10 percent) solids content, while
covered lagoons are appropriate for treating wastes with low (<2 percent) solids content.
Complete mix digesters are used for treating wastes with a solids content between 2 and 10
percent. The plug flow and the complete mix digesters are applicable in virtually all climates as
they use supplemental heat to ensure optimal temperature. Covered lagoons generally do not use
supplemental heat and are most effectively used in warmer climates (USEPA, 1996).
A plug flow digester is a constant volume, flow-through long tank with a gas-
impermeable expandable cover. Manure waste is added to the digester daily, slowly pushing the
older manure plugs through the tank. Average manure retention times range from 15 to 20 days.
The gas-impermeable cover maintains anaerobic conditions inside the tank and collects the biogas
through attached pipes (USEPA, 1997b).
5-120
-------
A complete mix digester is a heated, constant volume, mechanically-mixed tank
with a gas-impermeable collection cover. Manure waste is preheated and added daily to the
digester, where it is intermittently mixed to prevent formation of a crust and to keep solids in
suspension. Average manure retention times range from 15 to 20 days. The gas-tight cover
maintains anaerobic conditions inside the tank and collects the biogas through attached pipes.
The heat generated by burning the collected biogas is used to heat the digester (USEPA, 1997a).
A covered lagoon digester is the simplest type of methane recovery system. This
digester consists of two basins, one of which is topped with a gas-impermeable cover. This
floating impermeable cover is typically made of high density polyethylene (HDPE) or
polypropylene. The cover may be designed as a "bank-to-bank" cover, which spans the entire
lagoon surface with a fabricated floating cover, or as a "modular" cover, in which the cover
comprises smaller sections. Biogas collects under the cover and is recovered for use in generating
electricity. The second basin is uncovered and is'used to store effluent from the digester. Often,
manure waste is treated through a solids separator prior to the covered lagoon digester to ensure
the solids content is less than 2 percent (USEPA, 1996).
Selection of the type of digester is dictated by the percent solids expected in the
manure waste. To estimate the costs for a digester system, dairies that operate flush cleaning
systems are assumed to use a covered lagoon system following a settling basin, while dairies that
operate scrape systems are assumed to use a complete mix digester following a settling basin.
The design of the digester and methane recovery system is based on the AgSTAR FarmWare
model (EPA, 1997a). The design and cost of the concrete settling basins are discussed in Section
5.2.
5.13.2
Design
Dairy
Inputs to the FarmWare model are based on the model farm characteristics for a
large dairy. The FarmWare model requires input data on the livestock type, number of animals,
5-121
-------
geographic location, method of manure collection, and the type of waste management system.
Table 5.13.2-1 summarizes the inputs used for both the covered lagoon and complete mix
digesters. User-selected input values are noted with the letter "S" in brackets, [S]. Default input
values that are selected are noted with an [S,d].
The representative region used for the large dairy is Tulare County, California.
The model farm is assumed to have 1,450 cows, 435 heifers, and 435 calves in free stalls. The
farm is evaluated for both a covered lagoon digester and a complete mix digester.
Based on the input data provided, FarmWare calculates the influent and effluent
waste to and from the digester and the specific design and operating parameters. For the large
dairy, the FarmWare model calculates a total manure generation of about 187,000 Ib/day. With
an average volatile solids (VS) production of 8.5 Ib/day per 1,000 pounds of animal, the
FarmWare program estimates a total VS production of about 18,000 Ib/day. The model also
generates the design specifications for each system as shown in Table 5.13.2-2.
5-122
-------
Table 5.13.2-1
Farm Ware Input Table
: Input Data
• Type of Digester
Covered Lagoon Digester
Climate Data
County, State
Rainfall
Recommended Minimum Lagoon
Hydraulic Retention Time
Recommended Maximum Lagoon Loading
25-yr, 24-hr Storm
Annual Runoff Unpaved
Annual Runoff Paved
Annual Evaporation
- CompleteTVKx Digester
Tulare, California [S]
Determined by Farm Ware [S,d]
42 days '
101bVS/l,OOOcuft
3.5
inches
23 % of precipitation
50% of precipitation
55 inches
Farm Type
Farm Type
Farm Size (Farm Number)
Manure Collection Method
Waste Treatment System
Pretreatment
Dairy: Freestall [S]
1,450 milking cows [S]
435 heifers [S]
435 calves [S]
Flush parlor/
Flush freestall barn [S]
Flush parlor/
Scrape freestall barn [S]
Methane recovery lagoon [S]
Settling basin [S]
NA
[S] = User selected input.
[d] = Default input.
NA - Not applicable.
5-123
-------
Table 5.13.2-2
FarmWare Design Information
Design Information
•.'' • _•-.•: .;. • ..•;...-. •;•••••:<•. - 2 Type of Digester .. • • ;.-,; .'•• - ; -";
Covered Lagoon JDigester :•[.
, Complete Mix Digester •
Waste Characteristics
Amount of Influent Manure (Ib)
Rainfall (Ib)
Amount Digested (Ib)
Effluent (Ib)
1,656,696
14,883
23,642
' 1,647,937
239,325
NA
76,285
163,040
Design Parameters < ; ;• '• ' -i« . ••'
Hydraulic Retention [Time (days)
Depth (ft)
Dimension (ft)
Freeboard (ft)
Slope (hor/ver)
Total Volume (ft3)
.42
20
285 x 285
. - ,„ , 'i
2
1,21-1,167. \
20 .
20
73 diameter
1
NA
84,272
NA- Not applicable.
5.13.3
Costs
FarmWare calculates the cost to construct the digester, with or without energy
recovery equipment. Option 6 costs were calculated including the cost for energy recovery
equipment, the cost for water use, as well as an additional 15 percent of the capital costs
estimated by FarmWare to account for contingency items.
The biogas that is collected during the digestion process may be used to produce
electricity and propane. FarmWare allows the user to assign a unit value for electricity to estimate
the amount of cost savings the farm would receive by recovering biogas for energy use. For
Option 6 costs, a national average unit price for electricity of 7.4 cents per kilowatt hour (kWh) is
used (USDOE, 1998).
5-124
-------
The .model also allows the user to assign a dollar value for benefits such as odor
and pathogen reduction. For the Option 6 costs, no dollar value is assigned for these benefits.
Large Dairy - Covered Lagoon System
For this analysis, it is assumed that the cows spend 4 hours per day in the milking
parlor and 20 hours per day in the barn, and the heifers and calves spend 24 hours per day in
drylots. The milking parlor and the barn use a flush system for manure removal, and the
wastewater is sent to a covered anaerobic lagoon through a settling basin. The manure from the
feed apron and the drylots is scraped and applied to cropland.
. The total lagoon digester volume is calculated to be about 1,200,000 cubic feet.
With a lagoon depth of 20 feet, the linear surface dimensions are estimated to be 285 feet by 285
feet, representing a total area of about 81,225 square feet that requires an industrial fabric cover,
such as an HDPE cover. Table 5.13.2-2 presents the design information for the covered lagoon
digester, as determined by the FarmWare model.
The capital cost of a primary digester lagoon with cover is $ 111,000 and the
engine generator is $80,000. Other engineering costs total $25,000. The total capital cost is
$216,000. Annual costs include the FarmWare estimated operating savings, water costs for
dilution water, and an estimated 15 percent of the total capital costs. The net annual operating
cost is estimated to be ($63,994) per year (i.e., a net savings). This annual operating cost does
not reflect additional potential decreases in transportation costs, due to the reduction in solids a
digester causes. (Transportation costs are considered in Section 5.9 of this report).
Large Dairy - Complete Mix Digester System
For this analysis, it is assumed that the cows spend 4 hours per day in the milking
parlor, which uses a flush system for manure removal and 20 hours per day in the freestall barn,
and the heifers and calves spend 24 hours per day in drylots. The wastewater from the milking
5-125
-------
parlor goes through a mix tank before going to the complete mix digester. The manure in the
freestall barn and the drylots is scraped and applied to cropland.
The total digester volume is calculated to be about 84,000 cubic feet. With a
digester depth of 20 feet, the diameter is estimated to be 73 feet, with a total area of 4,200 square
feet. Table 5.13.2-2 presents the design information for the complete mix digester, as determined
by the FarmWare model.
The capital costs for the complete mix digester is $127,000, the mix tank is
$26,000, and the engine generator is $187,000. Other engineering costs total $25,000. The total
capital cost is $364,857. Annual costs include the FarmWare estimated operating savings, water
costs for dilution water, and an estimated 15 percent of the total capital costs. The net annual
operating cost is estimated to be ($85,969) per year (i.e., a net savings). This annual operating
cost does not reflect potential decreases in transportation costs, due to the reduction in solids a
digester causes. (Transportation costs are considered in Section 5.9 of this report.)
Swine Operations
The capital and annual costs for digesters were determined from the following two
equations using data from Table 5.13.3-1:
Capital Cost = nohead x capheadcost
Annual Cost = nohead x annheadcost
where:
Nohead =
Capheadcost =
Annheadcost =
Number of animals
Capital cost per animal
Annual cost per animal.
5-126
-------
Table 5.13.3-1
Digester Costs for Swine
I Manure Type
Pit
Liquid
Evaporative Pond
Operation Type
Grower-Feeder
Grower-Feeder
Farrow-Feeder
Farrow-Feeder
Grower-Feeder
Grower-Feeder
Farrow-Feeder
Farrow-Feeder
Grower-Feeder
Farrow-Feeder .
Region
Mid-Atlantic
Midwest
Mid-Atlantic
Midwest
Mid-Atlantic
Midwest
Mid-Atlantic
Midwest
Central
Central
Capital Cost
($ per Head)
41.3
42.1
39.09
39.37
38.73
39.45
33.81
34.79
37.62
33.81
Annual Cost *
(&per Head)
-6.3.1
-5.77
-2.08
-2.42
-6.18
-5.57
-1.97
-2.13
-5.55
-2.13
5.13.4
Results
Appendix A, Table A-16 presents the cost model results for constructing anaerobic
digesters with methane recovery at large dairies.
5.14
Litter Storage Sheds
Litter storage is included in the costing for all dry poultry operations.
Requirements for poultry litter storage structures are similar to those for mortality composting
facilities in that they require a roof, foundation and floor, and suitable building materials for side
walls. Storage facilities are assumed to be 68 feet wide and 8 feet tall. Litter is assumed to be
stacked to the top in a trapezoidal pile 48 feet wide at the base and 32 feet wide at the top.
There are aisles 10 feet wide on either side of the stack. It is assumed that poultry litter storage
facilities include a roof with a 0.75 pitch, a concrete floor 16 feet wide, and a 12-foot height from
floor to roof (NCSU, 1998). The width and height were designed for piling manure to its angle of
repose to minimize space. The length of the structure is variable.
5-127
-------
The size of a poultry manure storage facility was calculated based on the volume
of both manure and litter produced from the various poultry operations. Manure production for
all poultry types, when designing manure storage facilities, was assigned a value of 0.00169 ft3 per
bird per day (or 0.6169 ft3 per bird per year) (NCSU, 1998). The basic equation for calculating
manure production is:
where:
VolumeManure
Nohead
365
VolumeMmure = 0.00169 x Nohead x 365
Annual volume of manure, ft3
Number of animals
Days in year.
Litter production was calculated as the number of houses (25,000 chickens or
6,250 turkeys per house) multiplied by the shaving material application depth (3.0 inches),
multiplied by the area of the house (16,000 ft2), adjusted for the amount of house floor area to
receive shavings (zero percent for layers, 33 percent for pullets, and 100 percent for the remaining
poultry types), and multiplied by the frequency of litter storage emptying (no more than two times
per year). The basic equation for calculating litter production is:
where:
VolumeLitu.r = Houses x Depthstavings x AreaHouse x Coverage
Volume,^ =
Houses =
Depthshavings =
Coverage
Volume of litter in houses, ft3
Number of animal houses
Depth of litter, ft
Area of house floor, ft2
Portion of floor covered with litter (decimal fraction).
The volumes of manure and litter production are summed to arrive at the total
volume produced annually. The cost model assumes storage for six months. The volume of
storage required for the facility is calculated from the following:
5-128
-------
Volumestorage = (VolumeLitter + VolumeMamire) x Duration - 12
where:
Volume
Duration
12
'Storage
Storage facility volume
Time period for storage (months)
Months per year.
Assuming a height of 8 feet, the square footage of the litter storage facility is
calculated from the volume. EPA uses a construction cost of $8.50 per square foot based upon
the cost of a structure with concrete floors and walls since there is a risk of spontaneous
combustion at a stacking height of 8 feet (USDA NRCS, 2002a). The capital cost is determined
from the following equation:
Capital Cost =Volumestorage H- g x 8.50
The cost model includes no operating cost for storage facilities since manure and
litter management are considered part of the baseline scenario. Appendix Tables 17a through 17c
present capital costs for storage at dry poultry operations.
5.15
Lagoon Covers
The cost of lagoon covers is estimated as a technology that complies with Option 5
for Category 2 and 3 swine, layer, and veal operations. Flares are added to covered lagoons for
swine and poultry operations. In addition to covering lagoons under Option 5, evaporative pond
systems at swine operations are assumed abandoned and replaced with a new covered lagoon and
berms. These new lagoons are designed for a volume that does not include direct precipitation
since they are covered. Berms are not constructed around the abandoned evaporative pond. For
wet layer operations, lagoons for egg washing waste are also covered, but flares are not added.
5-129
-------
Design
As discussed in Section 5.4, lagoon shape is assumed to approximately be a
frustrum with top length and width equal and bottom length and width equal. Lagoon cover size
is estimated as the square footage of the top surface of the lagoon. Lagoon cover size is
calculated as:
Cover - W,agoc,ntopx L,agoomop
where:
W,
lagoontop
igoontop
Width of top of lagoon or evaporative pond, ft
Length of top of lagoon or evaporative pond, ft.
Lagoons for egg wash water at wet layer operations are designed to provide
storage for six months in accordance with the procedure described in Section 5.4.5 for swirie and
poultry operations. The volume required for egg wash water is determined from the following
equation:
where:
Nohead
0.05776
= Nohead x 0.057756619
Number of layers
Egg wash water volume per head per 6 months.
Layers produce an average of 256 eggs per year (USDA NASS, 1998). A value of
4.6 liters per case is used based upon the quantity of wash water used for table eggs (Hamm, D.,
G. Searcy, and A. Mercuri. 1974). There are 360 eggs per case.(United Egg, 2002), so
0.000451238 cubic feet of water is used per egg (4.6/360 x 0.03531435 cubic feet/liter). Since
storage is for six months, the volume of egg wash water per head is 0.05776 (256 x 0.000451238
5-130
-------
Fixed One-Time Costs
Several lagoon cover manufacturers were contacted to identify costs of purchasing
and installing lagoon covers. The results of the survey are shown'in Table 5.15-1. Installed
lagoon covers range from $1.20 to $4.81 per square foot, with lower costs per square foot
expected at larger installations and depending upon whether insulation is required. Thus, to
develop costs for installation of insulated lagoon covers, a cost of $4.00 per square foot was
assumed. The capital cost of a flare is estimated to be $2,500, and the cost for a cover and flare is
calculated using the following equation:
Capital Cost = Area of Cover * $4/ft2 + $2,500
Table 5.15-1
Manufacturer-Suggested Costs of Lagoon Covers for Vz-Acre Lagoons
x:-r'"-v , Dealer -..
Lange Containment
Systems, Inc.
CWNeal
Environmental
Fabrics, Inc.
Reef Industries
Geomembrane
Technologies, Inc.
Environmental
Protection Inc.
>;;. —;/••; . '•• Descriptipji ; .-;• ••;..• '••^- x.v*'1
30 mil PVC liner, 36 mil reinforced Hypalon cover system
installation
'/4-acre lagoon, 32-mil polypropylene, installed
'/•j-acre lagoon, 40 mil HOPE uninsulated cover, gas, and rain .
collection
'/i-acre lagoon, 40 mil HPDE R-6 insulated cover, gas, and
rain collection
Permalon®, ply X-210 reinforced floating cover system (not
including foam float logs)
Vi-acre cover system installed, 30 mil reinforced modified
PVC layer (XR-5) and '/2-inch sublayer
36 mil reinforced cover
:• -^iCfist — V'.V
$1.28/ft2
$34,665
$3-4/ft*
$0.85/ft2
$2.25/ft2
$0.407^
$105,000
$0.45 - $0.50/ft2
Annual Costs
Operation and maintenance costs for lagoon covers were estimated at 2 percent of
capital costs. Appendix Table A-18 presents costs for lagoon covers at veal operations.
5-131
-------
5.16
Feeding Strategies
Feeding strategies designed to reduce nitrogen (N) and phosphorus (P) losses
include more precise diet formulation, enhancing the digestibility of feed ingredients, genetic
enhancement of cereal grains and other ingredients resulting in increased feed digestibility and
improved quality control. These strategies increase the efficiency with which the animals use the
nutrients in their feed and decrease the amount of nutrients excreted in the waste. With a lower
nutrient content, more manure can be applied to the land and less cost is incurred to transport
excess manure from the farm. Strategies that focus on reducing P concentrations, thus reducing
overapplication of P and associated runoff into surface waters, can turn manure into a more
balanced fertilizer in terms of plant requirements.
5.16.1
Technology Description
Feeding strategies that reduce nutrient concentrations in waste have been
developed for specific animal sectors, and those for the swine and poultry industries are described
below. The application of these types of feeding strategies to the beef industry has lagged behind
other livestock sectors and is not discussed here.
Swine
Lenis and Schutte (1990) showed that the protein content of a typical Dutch swine
ration could be reduced by 30 grams per kilogram without negative effects on animal
performance. They calculated that a 1-percent reduction in feed N could result in a 10-percent
reduction in excreted N. Monge et al. (1998) confirmed these findings by concluding that a 1-
percent reduction in feed N yielded an 11-percent reduction in excreted N. Experts believe that N
losses through excretion can be reduced by 15 to 30 percent in part by minimizing excesses in diet
with better quality control at the feed mill (NCSU, 1998).
5-132
-------
Poultry
Precision nutrition entails formulating feed to meet more precisely the animals'
nutritional requirements, causing more of the nutrients to be metabolized, thereby reducing the
amount of nutrients excreted. For more precise feeding, it is imperative that both the nutritional
requirements of the animal and the nutrient yield of the feed are fully understood. Greater
understanding of poultry physiology has led .to the development of computer growth models that
take into account a variety of factors, including strain, sex, and age of bird, for use in
implementing a nutritional program. By optimizing feeding regimes using simulation results,
poultry operations can increase growth rates while reducing nutrient losses in manure.
Phytase can be used to feed all-poultry. Phosphorus reductions of 30 to 50 percent
have been achieved by adding phytase to the feed mix while simultaneously decreasing the amount
of inorganic P normally added (NCSU, 1999). Addition of phytase to feed significantly reduces P
levels in poultry manure. The high cost of phytase application equipment has discouraged more
widespread use. Phytase is in use at many poultry operations.
5.16.2
Costs
The cost model applies feeding strategies to all Category 2 and 3 swine and
poultry operations under all options. Hauling costs are compared for the cases with and without
feeding strategies under a range of technology scenarios, including separators, retrofit scraper
systems, sludge cleanout, highrise hog houses, hoop houses for hogs, and lagoon covers.
The basic approach to estimating the costs of feeding strategies involves six steps:
1. Determine P-based and N-based feeding strategy costs for animal type;
2. Determine the quantity of N and P in the applied manure;
3. Determine the acreage required to spread manure under N-based or P-
based management;
5-133
-------
4: Determine the quantity of nutrient in excess of on-farm needs;
5. Determine hauling costs; and
6. Add hauling costs to feeding strategy costs.
Feeding Strategy Costs
Feeding strategy costs for both swine and poultry are provided in Table 5.16.2-1
(Tetra Tech, 2000c). EPA estimates that it costs $ 10 per ton ($0.005 per pound) to reduce
nitrogen in feed. It is assumed that layers consume the same quantity of feed per day as do
broilers, which consume 11 pounds of feed, costing $0.055, to achieve market weight. Since
broiler turnover is 5.5 flocks per year, versus 1 flock per year for layers, the quantity of feed for
layers is estimated as 5.5 x 11, bringing the cost to $0.3025 per layer (5.5 x 0.055). Turkeys
consume 46 pounds of feed, at a cost of 46 * 0.005, or $0.23 per turkey.
Phosphorus feeding strategy costs for"broilers and layers" are-assumed to be zero
since integrators supply the feed to the growers, and phytase is commonly used at these
operations. The cost of phytase js estimated at $1 per ton, or $0.0005 per pound. For turkeys,
the feeding cost is therefore 46 x 0.0005, or.$0.023 per turkey.
Table 5.16.2-1
Feeding Strategy Costs for Swine and Poultry
Animal
Broiler
Layer
Turkey
Pig - FF
Pig-GF
Turns
5.5
1
2.5
2.1
2.8
Feeding Strategy Costs ($ Per Animal)
N -Strategy
0.055
0.3025
0.23
2.70
2.70
P Strategy
0
0
0.023
0.36
0.36
•5-134
-------
Feeding costs are calculated using the following equations:
where:
Swine - P-Based: CostFS = Noheadx UnitCost x Turns x o.7
Other: CostFS = Nohead x" UnitCost x Turns
CostFS
UnitCost
Turns
Cost of feeding strategies
Cost per animal for feeding strategy (Table 5.16.2-1)
Number of flocks or turnovers per year (Table 5.16.2-1).
Quantity of Nutrients Applied
Implementation of feeding strategies reduces the quantity of nutrients excreted.
The cost model assumes a 40-percent reduction in phosphorus excretion and a 20-percent
reduction in nitrogen excretion under P-based and N-based feeding strategies, respectively. The
following equation is used to calculate nutrient production resulting from feeding strategy
implementation:
where:
Nutrientps
Nutrient
Reduction
NutrientFS = Nutrient x (1-Reduction)
Total nutrient (N or P) in manure under feeding strategies
Total nutrient (N or P) in manure without feeding strategies
Feeding strategy nutrient reduction (N or P).
Acreage Required for Spreading
The acreage required to spread manure is calculated based upon nutrient content
of the manure, nutrient losses occurring during transport of the manure to the field, crop uptake
of the nutrient, and the portion of manure given away by the operation. The cost model assumes
that all nutrients are available to the crops, which is a conservative estimate with regard to
5-135
-------
I
acreage requirements. The values for nutrient uptake by crops are given in Table 5.16,2-2 (Tetra
Tech, 2000c). The following equation is used to determine the acreage required for spreading:
AcreageFS = NutrientFS x Efficiency x (1-Given) t Uptake
where:
AcreageFS
Nutrientpg
Efficiency
Given
Uptake
Acreage required to spread manure under feeding strategies,
acres
Total nutrient (N or P) hi manure under feeding strategies,
pounds per year
Portion of nutrient (N or P) available to crop, decimal
fraction =1 <
Portion of manure given away, decimal fraction
Crop uptake of nutrient (N or P), pounds per acre per year
(Section 4.9).
Table 5.16.2-2
Crop Nutrient Uptake
Animal Type
Poultry
Swine
Region
Mid-Atlantic
Midwest
South
Central
Mid-Atlantic
Midwest
N Uptake
(pounds per acre per year)
183
141
141
185
138
198
P Uptake
(pounds per acre per year)
20
10
10
24
14
19
Excess Nutrients
The cost model assumes that nitrogen feeding strategies are used under N-based
management, while phosphorus feeding strategies are used under P-based management. Excess
nutrients result when the acreage required to spread the manure at either N-based or P-based
5-136
-------
agronomic rates exceeds the acreage available at the operation. The cost model requires hauling
for cases where there are excess nutrients. The following equation is used to calculate the
quantity of excess nitrogen and phosphorus under P-based management where phosphorus
feeding strategies are employed: •
where:
ExcessN = NNoFS x (1- AcreageFaim ^-AcreageFS.P) x (l-Given)
Excessp = (PFS - PFarm) x (1 -Given)
Exces^ = Excess nitrogen, Ib/yr
Excessp = Excess phosphorus, Ib/yr
N = Nitrogen in manure without feeding strategies, Ib/yr
= Phosphorus in manure with feeding strategies, Ib/yr
= Phosphorus required on farm to meet crop nutrient
-. requirements, Ib/yr
AcreageFann = Acreage on farm available to spread manure, acres
AcreageFS.P = Acreage required to spread manure under P feeding
strategies, acres
Reduction = Feeding strategy nutrient reduction (N or P)
Given = Portion of manure given away, decimal fraction.
NoFS
FS
A similar set of equations is used to determine excess nitrogen and phosphorus
amounts under N-based nutrient management. In simple terms, the amount of manure spread on
the farm is based upon the quantity of the target nutrient (N or P) available in the manure after
feedings strategies for that nutrient are implemented. The nutrients in the leftover manure are
considered excess nutrients.
Hauling Costs
Hauling costs are determined using the basic approach described for contractor
hauling costs in Section 5.9.2. The portion of manure to be hauled is determined from the
following equation:
HauIPct= l-(AcreageFaim^- AcreageFS)
5-137
-------
where:
HaulPct
AcreageFanl
AcreageFS
Portion of manure hauled away, decimal fraction
Acreage on farm available to spread manure, acres
Acreage required to spread manure under (N or P) feeding
strategies, acres.
The quantity of manure to be hauled is calculated from the following equations for
liquid and solid manure:
where:
Liquid: VolumeLiquidMamirc = VolumeManure x HaulPct x (1-Given) x (1-Mangive)
Solid: WeightSolidMamTC= WeightManurc x HaulPct x (l-Given) x (1-Mangive)
VolumeLiquidManure
WeightSolidManure=
VolumeManure
WeightManure
Given
HaulPct
Mangive
= Annual volume of liquid manure to haul,
gallons/year
Annual weight of solid manure to haul, tons/year
= Annual volume of manure produced, gallons/year
= Annual weight of manure produced, tons/year
= Portion of manure given away, decimal fraction
= Portion of manure hauled away, decimal fraction
= Frequency factor for giving manure away.
EPA assumes that Category 3 operations incur no cost to haul manure under N-
based management since that is the baseline scenario. For all other Category 2 and 3 liquid-based
swine and poultry operations, the cost of hauling the sludge is determined using the following
equation:
lid= (Volumeu,uidManurx LiquidFirst) + (LiquidAdd x VolumeLiquidManur) x (Transport-1))
where:
CostLiquid
VolumeLiquidManu
LiquidFirst
LiquidAdd
Transport
Annual cost of hauling liquid manure
Annual volume of liquid manure to haul,
gallons/year
Liquid hauling cost for first mile
Liquid hauling cost beyond first mile
Transport distance for hauling manure.
5-138
-------
Transport distances are given in Table 5.9.2-1. For the Mid-Atlantic region, the
transport distances for liquid hauling are changed if feeding strategies are employed. If the
hauling percentage (HaulPct) is less than 20 percent (0.20), the transport distance is set at 5.5
miles, the distance for Nrbased management at Category 2 facilities (see Table 5.9.2-1).
Otherwise, the transport distance is set to 18 miles in the Mid-Atlantic region.
For all other Category 2 and 3 solid-based operations, the cost of hauling the
manure is determined using the following equation:
where:
CostSolid
WeightSoIidManure=
HaulRate
Transport
= WeightSolidManure x HaulRate x Transport
= Annual cost of hauling solid manure
Annual weight of solid manure to haul, tons/year
= Hauling rate based upon hauling distance (Table
5.17.3-3)
= Transport distance for hauling manure.
Total Feeding Strategy Costs
The cost model assessed the relative cost of feeding strategies by summing the
costs for feeding, strategies and the associated hauling. This cost can be compared versus hauling
without feeding strategies to determine which is less expensive. Similarly, hauling associated with
other nutrient reduction technologies (e.g., scraper systems) is costed with and without feeding
strategies. The total cost of feeding strategy implementation is estimated with the following
equation:
where:
CostFS
CostHauli
Cost = CostF<- + Cost,
•Hauling
Cost of feeding strategies
Cost of hauling with feeding strategies.
5-139
-------
5.17
Options to Retrofit Swine and Wet Layer Systems to Dry Systems
In addition to the use of lagoon covers to comply with the requirements of Option
5, EPA investigated retrofitting swine and wet layer systems to replace lagoons as the waste
management practice. Retrofitting to a "scraper system" was assessed for swine and wet layer
facilities. In addition, retrofitting to high-rise and hoop houses for swine operations was assessed.
The scraper system and high-rise house retrofit options require the cleanout and closure of the
existing lagoon.
5.17.1
Lagoon Cleanout and Closure Costs
Lagoon closures were used as part of the cost test for BAT option 5, and were
also considered as part of a proposed permit requirement to have a closure plan or a bond to
ensure closure. These options were not selected.
USDA NRCS developed an interim standard that has been use for closure of
lagoons used in North Carolina. NCDENR (1999) prepared a list of 65 lagoon closures that have
been cost-shared by the North Carolina Agriculture Cost Share Program. The smallest lagoon
was 0.11 acres, and the largest was 2.5 acres. The range of closure costs on a per acre basis was
generally in the $15K/acre to $60K/acre range. The average cost to clean out and close 65 dairy,
beef, poultry, and swine lagoons was $0.031 per gallon. This value is used to estimate the cost of
lagoon cleanout and closure nationally using the following equation:
Cleanout Cost = Volume*,
. x 0.031
where:
Volume
'Manure
Volume of manure for one year, gallons
Cleanout Cost = VolumeManure x 0.031
5-140
-------
Where,
VolumeManure = Volume of manure for one year (gallons)
5.17.2
Retrofit to Scraper System
Mechanical scrapers are dedicated to a specific alley, propelled by electrical
devices, and attached by cables or chains (USDA NRCS, 1996). Scrape alleys range from 3 to 8
feet wide for swine and poultry operations.
Scraper systems are applied to both swine and wet-layer facilities in the cost model
. One retrofit unit is required for each 1,250 hogs or 25,000 layers, with a minimum of one unit
per operation. Components of scraper systems costed in the model include a motor, blades, and a
steel tank for storage of scraped material for one year. There is also a setup cost and a cost for
cleanout of the existing lagoon (see Section 5.4). When facilities are retrofitted to a scraper
system, the dilution factor is set to 1, no additional water is added, and scraped material is moved
to a covered steel tank to limit dilution by precipitation.
It is assumed that each animal house has a single alley requiring one scraper system
(Figure 5.17.2-1). Each scraper has two blades. Steel scraper blades last for 10 years (MDS,
2002). Since costs are amortized over 20 years, four steel blades are purchased at $177 each as
capital costs. This cost is based upon $29.50 per foot for 6-foot blades (MDS, 2002). EPA
assumes a setup cost of $36,000 per house, and $200 for a 1/4 HP motor. The volume of waste
to be stored in the tank is calculated from the following equation:
where:
VolumeManureUndilutcd = nohead x weight -s-1,000 x volume x 365 x 7.481
ManureUndiluted
Volume;
nohead
weight -5-1000
volume
Annual volume of undiluted manure, gallons/year
Number of head
Animal weight divided by 1,000 = Number of animal
units
Cubic feet of manure produced per animal unit per
day
5-141
-------
365
7.481
Days per year
Gallons per cubic foot.
Scraper Blades
Stalls
17
Alley
Stalls
Figure 5.17.2-1. Scraper System
Capital Costs
Retrofit costs (minus lagoon cleanout costs) are calculated using the following
equation:
Capital Cost = ((Setup + Motor) + (Blades* 177)) x Number + (VolumeManureUndi,uled x Tankcost)
where:
Setup
Motor
Blades
177
Setup cost of $36,000
Motor cost of $200
Number of steel scraper blades (4)
Cost of steel scraper blades
5-142
-------
Number
Tankcost
Number of retrofit units
Cost of steel tank ($0.18 per gallon).
Annual Costs
Annual operation and maintenance include labor, electricity, replacement blades
and standard maintenance. EPA .estimates motor usage for each unit to be 897 kWh at $0.095
per kWh. Labor for each unit is estimated to be 52 hours per year at $10 per hour, and
maintenance is estimated at 2 percent of initial costs, including cleanout of the lagoon ($724).
Annual costs are calculated using the following equation:
Annual Cost = (Electricity x Rate + Hours x Labor) x Number + Capital Cost x 0.02
where:
Electricity =
Rate =
Hours =
Labor =
Number =
CapitalCost =
0.02
Annual electricity usage per unit
Cost of electricity
Labor per unit
Labor rate
Number of retrofit units
Capital Cost (including lagoon cleanout)
Standard maintenance rate.
5.17.3
Retrofit to High Rise Hog Houses
Menke, et al. (2000) evaluated the construction costs for a two-story confinement
housing design. Material falls through open slots onto the first floor where it is composted with
carbon-rich material. A high-rise house for 1,000 head of finishing pigs is 44 feet * 190 feet. On
a per pig basis, a traditional deep pit house in Indiana/Ohio costs $155 to 160 per animal; a
lagoon style flush house costs $145 per animal; and the high-rise building costs $185 per animal.
The high-rise building costs include professional engineering design that meets NRCS design
standards. Building a deep-pit house to these standards is estimated to increase the construction
cost of a deep-pit house by $15,000 ($15 per animal).
5-143
-------
Operation and maintenance costs for a high-rise hog facility are estimated at 2
percent of initial costs. Additional costs include energy costs and drying agents. Energy costs for
a traditional confinement building are estimated at $2,500 to $2,800 per year. The high-rise
building has average monthly costs of approximately $400 or $4,800 annually. Drying agents
evaluated include wheat straw, corn stalks, and wood shavings. Around 50 to 60 tons of wood
shavings are needed to cover the house at a depth of 2 feet at an annual cost of $4,000 to $5,000
per year. In contrast, 5 feet of straw or corn stalk material are needed to absorb similar amounts
of moisture. Even at a lower cost of $9 to $10 per 1,200 pound bale of com stalks, the higher
volumes required offset the unit cost savings. Straw and corn materials also tend to degrade and
compost more rapidly than wood, requiring more frequent addition of drying material to the
house. .-'.i :
The cost of feed and manure handling are assumed to be no different from
baseline. Therefore, the initial cost of high-rise buildings for hogs is calculated using the
following equation:
where:
Nohead
Construction
Capital Cost = Nohead x Construction
Number of head
Cost of construction ($185 per pig space).
Annual costs are estimated with the following equation:
where:
Annual Cost = Nohead x Operation + Capital Cost x o .02
Nohead
Operation
Number of head
Cost of confinement fuel, repairs, and utilities ($3.22 per
Pig)-
5-144
-------
5.17.4
Retrofit to Hoop Houses
Hoop structures are low-cost, Quonset-shaped swine shelters with no form of
artificial climate control. Wooden or concrete sidewalls 4 to 6 feet tall are covered with an
ultraviolet and moisture-resistant, polyethylene fabric tarp supported by 12- to 16-gauge tubular
steel hoops or steel truss arches placed 4 to 6 feet apart. Hoop structures with a diameter greater
than 35 feet generally have trusses rather than the tubing used on narrower hoops. Some
companies market hoops as wide as 75 feet. Tarps are affixed to the hoops using ropes or winches
and nylon straps.
Generally, the majority of the floor area is earthen, with approximately one-third of
the south end of the building concreted and used as a feeding area. Approximately 150 to 200
finisher hogs or up to 60 head of sows are grouped together in one large, deep-bedded pen.
Plentiful amounts of high-quality bedding are applied to the earthen portion of the structure,
creating a bed approximately 12 to 18 inches deep. The heavy bedding absorbs animal manure to
produce a solid waste product. Additional bedding is added continuously throughout the
production cycle. Fresh bedding keeps the bed surface clean and free of pathogens and sustains
aerobic decomposition. Aerobic decomposition within the bedding pack generates heat and
elevates the effective temperature in the unheated hoop structure, improving animal comfort in
winter conditions.
The costing for hoop houses is similar to that for high-rise houses. Capital costs
are estimated using the following equation:
Capital Cost = Nohead x Construction
where:
Nohead =
Construction =
Number of head
Cost of construction ($55 per pig space).
Annual costs are estimated with the following equation:
5-145
-------
where:
Annual Cost = Nohead x (Operation + Bedding + Hours x Labor) + Capital Cost x 0 .02
Nohead
Operation
Bedding
Hours
Labor
Number of head
Cost of confinement fuel, repairs, and utilities ($1.40 per
pig)
Cost of bedding ($4.20 per pig)
Labor (1.12 hours per pig) .
$10 per hour.
5.18
Recycling of Flush Water
In liquid-based systems, fresh water can be used for flushing or water from a
secondary lagoon can be recycled as flush water. This technology is applied to Category 2,
lagoon-based swine operations for all options except Option 5.
Costing for this technology includes piping, labor, and an extra lined lagoon
designed to provide an additional 20 days of storage. The design of the extra lagoon is discussed
hi Section 5.4.5, and lagoon liners are described in Section 5.4.2. EPA assumes that 250 feet of
pipe are required to connect the extra lagoon to the pump, at a cost of $2.13 per foot. It is
estimated that 4 hours of labor is required to install the pipe and set up the pump, at a cost of
$10/hour.
Capital Cost
The capital costs are estimated with the following equation:
Capital Cost = Pipelength x Pipecost + Hours x Labor + ExtraLagoon + Liner
where:
Pipelength =
Pipecost =
Hours =
Labor =
Length of pipe
Cost per foot of pipe
General labor hours to install pipe and pump
$10/hour
5-146
-------
ExtraLagoon =
Liner =
Cost to build lagoon with storage for 20 days
Cost of liner for extra lagoon.
The cost to build the extra lagoon is estimated by multiplying the lagoon volume
by the earth moving cost of $2.60 per cubic yard. The cost of the liner is determined by
multiplying the surface area of the liner (bottom plus sides) by the liner cost of $1.84 per square
foot (clay plus synthetic).
Annual Costs
The annual cost is calculated with the following equation:
Annual Cost = Capital Cost x 0.02
5.19
Sludge Cleanout
Sludge must be removed from lagoons periodically to keep storage capacity
available. The cost model accounts for sludge cleanout annually for beef feedlots, dairies, and
heifer operations and once every five years for liquid-based swine operations for all considered
options.
5.19.1
Technology Description
Nondegradable solids settle to the bottom of lagoons as sludge, which is
periodically removed. The liquid is applied to on-site cropland as fertilizer or irrigation water, or
it is transported off site. The sludge can also be land applied as a fertilizer and soil amendment.
Compared with lagoon liquids, lagoon sludges have higher concentrations of all
pollutants that are not completely soluble. Some organic N associated with heavier and
nondegradable organics also settles into the lagoon sludge and stays, resulting in a high-organic N
fraction of total Kjeldahl N (TKN) in settled solids.
5-147
-------
Beef and Dairy Model
For the beef, dairy, and sludge operations, sludge removal is assumed to occur
annually because of the higher capacity requirements associated with liquid storage receiving
runoff from open lots. Cost for removing the sludge is determined using a cost test against three
options: .
1) Lagoon or pond is pumped to a traveling gun. Sludge is applied to land on
site using the traveling gun.
2) Lagoon or pond is pumped to a tanker truck owned and operated by the
operation owner. The tanker truck ships the sludge to an off-site location.
3) A custom applicator brings equipment on site, removes the sludge, and
ships the sludge off site.
Hauling costs incurred by the owner/operator are included in Section 5.9.
5.19.2
Beef and Dairy Costs
Capital Costs
The cost model assumes that facilities with less than 30 acres may choose to
purchase a traveling gun or contract with a custom applicator to remove sludge from their
lagoons. The model assumes that facilities with 30 or greater acres may choose to purchase a
tanker truck to haul their own waste or will contract with a custom applicator to remove sludge
from their lagoons. Costs for a traveling gun are outlined in Section 5.8 and costs to purchase a
tanker truck are outlined in Section 5.9. Contracting with a custom applicator has no assumed
capital costs.
5-148
-------
Annual Costs
Annual costs for traveling guns and tanker truck hauling are estimated at 5 percent
of the capital costs. Annual costs for contracting with a custom applicator are estimated at $0.05
per gallon of sludge. Appendix Table A-19 presents sludge removal costs for beef feedlots,
dairies, and heifer operations.
5.19.3
Swine Costs
For the swine cost model, zero cost is assumed for sludge cleanout, but hauling
costs are estimated. The volume of sludge to be hauled is determined using the following
equation: . ' •
VolumeSiudgc = VolumeManure x (1-Given) x Solids x 0.924 x HaulPct x (1-mangive)
where:
Volumesludge
VolumeManurc
Given
Solids
0.924
HaulPct
Mangive
Annual volume of sludge to haul, gallons/year
Annual volume of manure produced, gallons/year
Portion of manure given away, decimal fraction
Solids content of manure, decimal fraction
Moisture content of sludge
Portion x>f manure hauled away, decimal fraction
Frequency factor for giving manure away.
EPA assumes that Category 3 swine operations incur no cost to haul sludge under
N-based management since that is the baseline scenario. For all other Category 2 and 3 liquid-
based swine operations, the cost of hauling the sludge is determined using the following equation:
where:
Costs,udl= = (Volumesludgc x LiquidFirst) + (LiquidAdd x Volumesludge x (Transport - 1))
C°StSludge
Volumes,udge =
LiquidFirst =
LiquidAdd =
Annual cost of hauling sludge
Annual volume of sludge to haul, gallons/year
Liquid hauling cost for first mile
Liquid hauling cost beyond first mile
5-149
-------
Transport
Transport distance for hauling sludge.
The values of LiquidFirst ($0.008/gallon-mile) and LiquidAdd ($0.0013/gallon-
mile) are taken from Table 5.9.2-3, In cases where feeding strategies are employed (see Section
5.21.9), sludge volume is reduced by the factor (1-FSRed) to account for the reduced quantity of
solid waste produced under feeding strategies. The value of FSRed is 0.40. Further, for the Mid-
Atlantic region, the transport distances are changed if feeding strategies are employed. If the
hauling percentage (HaulPct) is less than 20 percent (0.20), the transport distance is set at 5.5
miles, the distance for N-based management at Category 2 facilities (see Table 5.9.2-1).
Otherwise, the transport distance is set to 18 miles in the Mid-Atlantic region for swine facilities
that use feeding strategies to reduce manure-P production.
5.20
Surface Water Monitoring
Option 4 requires animal feeding operations to monitor nearby water bodies for
contaminants.
5.20.1
Practice Description
Surface water monitoring is used to evaluate the nutrient loading of waterways
near animal feeding operations. The primary purpose of this monitoring is to determine the
effectiveness of implemented technologies and practices at preventing contamination of surface
water. Possible sources of excess loading include uncontained runoff and lagoon overflow during
peak storm events.
The best time to monitor the effectiveness of runoff control systems is immediately
following storm events; therefore, sampling events are not scheduled in advance. Animal feeding
operations are costed for sampling water bodies going through or adjacent to feeding operations
immediately following storm events, up to 12 times per year.
5-150
-------
5.20.2
Prevalence of the Practice in the Industry
It is assumed that beef feedlots, dairies, and veal operations do not have surface
water monitoring programs in place, therefore, the cost model assigns the cost of surface water
monitoring to every operation evaluated under Option 4. Note that Option 4 is the only option in
the cost model that includes surface water monitoring.
5.20.3
Design
The design for surface water monitoring is based on the sampling program and
includes monitoring at the surface impoundment (pond or lagoon) and the stockpile. The
requirements of the sampling program are:
• Twelve sampling events per year at surface water bodies;
• One sampling event per year at the lagoon or pond and at the stockpile;
• Four grab samples and one quality assurance (QA) sample per sampling
event (Table 5.20-1 shows the total number of samples'over a one-year
period);
• Sampling will coincide with rain events in excess of 0.5 inches
precipitation; and
• Analysis of each sample for nutrients (nitrite, nitrate, total Kjeldahl
nitrogen, total phosphorus) and total suspended solids (TSS).
An alternative analysis considered ambient monitoring for metals (zinc, arsenic,
copper), BOD5, and biological organisms (fecal conforms, enterococcus, salmonella, and
escherichia coli). Due to high costs and limited holding times for BOD and pathogen samples,
these parameters were not costed for Option 4. EPA believes the uncertainty of precipitation
events prevents the CAFO owner from being prepared to rapidly sample; therefore, accurate
sample collection and shipping would be very difficult for these additional constituents.
5-151
-------
r
5.20.4
Table 5.20-1
Number of Samples
1 Number of sampling events per year
Number of samples per sampling event (4 grab + 1 QA)
Total annual samples
12
5
60
Costs
Initial cost estimates, shown in Table 5.20-2, include training, coolers, and
reusable sampling equipment Annual costs, shown in Table 5.20-3, include sterile containers and
sampling supplies for each sampling event, labor costs associated with sampling, sample overnight
shipment, and lab processing fees.
Table 5.20-2
Capital Costs for Surface Water Sampling
Description
Training (8 hr)
Course fee
Misc. other costs (15% of labor)
Coolers (2)
Sampling equipment (pipet, etc.)
Unit Cost
$10/hr
$40
—
$30/cooler
$200
Total Capital Cost
Capital Cost ;
$80
$40
$12
$60
$200
$392
5-152
-------
Table 5.20-3
Annual Costs for Surface Water Sampling
: Description ,-
250-mL bottles (2 per sample)
500-mL bottles (1 per sample)
Overnight shipping (30-lb cooler)
Misc. supplies and transportation
Laboratory costs
Sample collection (2 hrs/sampling event)
QA & recordkeeping (1 hr/sampling event)
Unit Cost
$2/bottle
$2.70/bottle
$60/sampling event
$30
$79/sample
• $ro/hf
$10/hr . .. .
Annual Cost
$240
$162
$720
$30 ,
$4,740
$240' '
. . : — $120
5.20.5
Results
The cost model results for the surface water monitoring option do not vary
between animal type, region, or size group. The capital cost for surface water monitoring is
$392, and the annual cost is $6,252.
5.21
References
AEA, 1999. George, John. Telephone discussion regarding drylot areas and clay liners
September 1999.
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, 2002. Choosing a Sprinkler Irrigation System.
Accessed August 20, 2002.
ASAE, 1998. ASAE Standards 1998, 45th Edition. American Society of Agricultural Engineers
St. Joseph, MI. as,
ASC Scientific, 1999. ASC Scientific: Soil Augers and Sampling Tools.
. Accessed September 30, 1999.
Barker, J.C., 2000. Worksheet to Determine Size of Poultry Mortality Composter, EBAE 177-93,
http.7/www.bae.ncsu.edu/programs/extension/publicat/wqwm/ebae 177 93.html retrieved'
5/21/2000.
. 5-153
-------
Building News, 1998. Home Builder's 1998 Costbook. 6th Edition.
Case's Ag-world.com, 2000. The Haymarket. Website Marketplace. December 13, 2000.
Clemson Extension, 2002. Irrigation Equipment: Traveling Gun Systems.
Accessed August 11, 2002.
ERG, 2000a. Methodology to Calculate Storage Capacity Requirements Under Option 7.
Internal memorandum from Eastern Research Group, Inc.
ERG, 2000b. Methodology to Calculate Contract Hauling Rates for Beef and Dairy Cost Model.
Internal memorandum by Eastern Research Group, Inc.
ERG, 2000c. Methodology to Cost Conveyances for Feedlots. Internal Memorandum from
Eastern Research Group, Inc.
i. ]
ERG, 2001. Ground Water Assessment & Sampling Cost Comment. Memorandum from T. Curry
at Eastern Research Group, Inc. to P. Shriner at EPA; February 6, 2002.
ERG, 2002. Estimates of Existing Storage for Beef and Dairy Model Farms. Memorandum from
D. Bartram of Eastern Research Group, Inc. to Feedlots Rulemaking Record. December
10,2002. ~ - ~
ESRI, 1998. ESRIData & Maps CD No. 2: United States (Detailed). Environmental Systems
Research Institute, Inc. Redlands, CA.
Fulhage, C. D. and D.L. Pfost, 1995. Settling Basins and Terraces for Dairy Waste. University
of Missouri-Columbia, Department of Agricultural Engineering.
Hamm, D., G. Searcy, and A. Mercuri. 1974. "A study of the waste wash water from egg washing
machines." Poultry Science. 53:191-197.
Jewell, W.J., P.E. Wright, N.P. Fleszar, G. Green, A. Safinski, A. Zucker, 1997. Evaluation of
• ' Anaerobic Digestion Options for Groups of Dairy Farms in Upstate New York.
Department of Agricultural and Biological Engineering, Cornell University. June 1997.
Kellogg, R.et al., 2000. Manure Nutrients Relative to the Capacity of Cropland and Pastureland
to Assimilate Nutrients: Spatial and Temporal Trends for the U.S.
Kifco, 2002. Telephone discussion regarding traveling gun irrigation systems.
Lander, C.H. D. Moffitt, and K.Alt, 1998. Nutrients Available from Livestock Manure Relative
'to Crop Growth Requirements. Resource Assessment and Strategic Planning Working
Paper 98-1.
5-154
-------
Lenis, N.P., and J.B. Schutte. 1990. "Aminozuurvoorziening van biggen en vleesvarkens in relatie
tot stikstofuitscheiding." In: Mestproblematiek: aanpak via de voeding van varkens en
pluimvee (A.W. Jongbloed and J. Coppoqlse, eds.), pp. 7^-89. Onderzoek inzake de mest
en ammoniakproblematiek in de veehouderij 4, Dienst Landbouwkundig
Onderzoekj Wageningen. ; - ,_ , . ,i^,«.--,. . ,
Lusk, P., 1998. Methane Recovery from Animal Manures: a Current Opportunities Casebook.
3rd Edition. NREL/SR-25145. National Renewable Energy Laboratory. Golden, Colorado.
MDS 2002. MDS Hog Confinement Systems* Products. Email from Brad Hohn
(mds@santel.net) quoting price of steel blades. November 5, 2Q02.
Means, R:S., 1996. Heavy Construction Cost Data. 10ffi Armual Edition?" ~'~
Means,*R.S., 1998. Building: Construction Cost Data. 56th Annual Edition. • -' ~ ••'•'
Means, R.S., 1999. Building Construction Cost Data. 56th Annual Edition.
Menke, T, H. Keener, and G. Lefevre. 2000. Highnse Hog Housing Cost Information. Emailed
on to Terra Tech on April 25, 2000.
Monge, H., P.H. Simmins, and J. Weigel, 1998. Reductionfdu taux proteique alimentaire
combinee avec differents rapports methionine:lysine. Effet sur le bilan azote du poire
maigre en croissance et en finition. Journees de la Recherce Porcine en France 29:293-
298.
MWPS, 1987. Midwest Plan Service: Structures and Environment Handbook, MWPS-1. Iowa
State University. Ames, Iowa. 1987.
MWPS, 1993. Midwest Plan Service: Livestock Waste Facilities Handbook. Second Edition.
MWPS-18. Iowa State University. Ames Iowa. April 1993.
NCDENR. 1999 Lagoon closure information. North Carolina Department of Environmental and
Natural Resources, Division of Soil and Water Conservation. Raleigh, North Carolina.
NCSU, 1993. North Carolina State University. Livestock Manure Production and
Characterization in North Carolina. North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service.
1993.
NCSU. 1998. Draft of Swine and Poultry Industry Characterization, Waste Management
Practices and Modeled Detailed Analysis of Predominantly Used Systems. North
Carolina State University, September 30.
NCSU. 1999. Nitrogen and Phosphorus Excretion in Poultry Production. Unpublished. February
1999. North Carolina State University, Animal Waste Management Program
5-155
-------
NRAES, 1989. Northeast Regional Agricultural Engineering Service. Liquid Manure Application
Systems Design Manual. Dougherty, Mark, Larry Geohring, and Peter Wright. National
Regional Agricultural Engineering Service.
NRAES, 1992. Northeast Regional Agricultural Engineering Service. On-Farm Composting
Handbook. Rynk, Robert (editor).NRAES-54. Ithica, New York. 1992.
Omega Engineering, The Temperature Handbook. Omega Engineering, Inc. 1999.
Richardson Engineering Services, Inc.;i996. Process Plant Construction Estimating Standards.
Volume 1. Sitework, Piping, Concrete. -
Sims I, A. Leytem, F. Coale, 2000. Implementing a Phosphorus Site Index: The Delmarva
Experience. In Proceedings of 2000 NatioharPoultry Waste Management Symposium.
Simons,"C. 2002. Excess manure recordkeeping costs. Memorandum on April 23 from C. Simons,
DPRA Inc. to V. Kibler, EPA and J. Waddell, Tetra Tech.
Sweeten, J.M. and S.H. Amosson, 1995. Total Quality Manure Management. Texas Cattle
Feeders Association. June 1995.
Tetra Tech, Inc., 1999. Costs Associated with surface water sampling. Memorandum to Paul
Shriner (EPA). December 17,1999.
Tetra Tech, Inc., 2000a. Costs of Storage, Transportation, and Land Application of Manure.
February 2000.
Tetra Tech, Inc. 2000b. Revised Transportation Distances for Category 2 and 3 Type
Operations. Memorandum to Paul Shriner (EPA), January 7, 2000.
Tetra Tech, Inc., 2000c. Cost Model for Swine and Poultry Sectors. May 2000.
Tetra Tech, Inc., 2002. Swine and Poultry Cost Model QA/QC Report. December, 2002.
United Egg, 2002. Statistics, http://www.unitedegg.org/statistics.htm, retrieved 11/7/2002.
USDA APHIS, 1995. National Animal Health Monitoring System (NAHMS), Swine '95: Part I:
Reference of 1995 Swine Management Practices.
USDA APHIS, 1996a. National Animal Health Monitoring System (NAHMS), Part 1: Reference
of 1996 Dairy Management Practices.
USDA APHIS, 1996b. National Animal Health Monitoring System (NAHMS), Swine '95: Part
II: Reference of 1995 Grower/Finisher Health and Management.
5-156
-------
USDA NASS, 1998. Chickens and Eggs Final Estimates 1994-1997, Statistical Bulletin Number
944, Washington, DC.
USDANRCS, 1992. Agricultural Waste Management Field Handbook, National Engineering
' Handbook (NEH), Part 657.1992. ''
USDA NRCS, 1995. Conservation Practice Standard: Waste Storage Facility Code 313, April
1995.
USDANRCS, 1996. Agricultural Waste Management Field Handbook, National Engineering
Handbook (NEH), Part 651 - Chapter 10. 1996.
. '
USDA NRCS, 1998. Chickens and Eggs Final Estimates 1994-1997, StatisticaLBulletin . .;..,
Number 944, Washington, DC. 1998.
USDA NRCS, 2002a. Cost Estimator (2002), Alabama NRCS,' " '
http://www.al.nrcs.usda.gov/FOTG/ICOST/CostEstimator2002.xls,-retrieved 4-1-2002.
USDA NRCS, 2002b. Cost List for USDA Cost-Share Programs (2/15/02), Alabama NRCS,
http://www.al.nrcs.usda.gov/pdf/EQIP_HB.pdf, retrieved 8-22-2002.
USDOE, 1998. United States Department of Energy (DOE): Monthly Electric Utility Sales and
Revenue Report with State Distributions. Energy Information Administration, Form EIA-
826.
USEPA. 1993. Guidance Specifying Management Measures for Sources ofNonpoint Pollution
in Coastal Waters. EPA840-B-92-002. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Water, Washington, DC. January 1993.
USEPA, 1995. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Process Design Manual: Land
Application of Sewage Sludge and Domestic Septage. EPA/625/R-95/001 .Office of
Research and Development: National Risk Management Research Laboratory, Center for
Environmental Research Information. September 1995.
USEPA, 1996. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Agstar Technical Series: Covered
'Lagoon Digesters. EPA 430-F-96-007. Office of Air and Radiation. March 1996.
USEPA, 1991 a. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Agstar Technical Series: Complete Mix
Digesters. EPA 430-F-97-004. Office of Air and Radiation. February 1997.
USEPA, 1997b. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Agstar Technical Series: Plug Flow
Digesters. EPA 430-F-97-006. Office of Air and Radiation. February 1997.
5-157
-------
USEPA, 1999. Identification of Acreage of U.S. Agricultural Land with a Significant Potential
for Siting of Animal Waste Facilities and Associated Limitations from Potential of
Ground Water Contamination-draft. Office of Water. Sobecki, T.M., and M. Clipper,
December 15,1999.
USEPA. 2000. Water Quality Conditions in the United States. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Water. EPA841
Zimmatic, Inc. 1999. Cost Estimate for Center Pivot Irrigation Systems,
http://www.Zimniatic.com.
5-158
-------
6.0
FREQUENCY FACTORS
EPA recognizes that most individual farms are currently implementing certain
waste management techniques or practices that are called for in the regulatory options considered.
Only costs that are the direct result of the regulation are included in the cost model. Therefore,
costs already incurred by operations are not attributed to the regulation.
Frequency factors are used in the cost model to simulate a cost allowance by
reducing the expenditures necessary to bring a farm into compliance with the regulatory options
considered. In other words, compliance costs are set to less than 100 percent of the cost of
needed practices if farms are already implementing all or part of these practices or equivalent
practices. The resulting cost could be viewed as an allowance. The degree to which costs are
reduced is directly linked to the extent to which the required practices are already being
implemented.
TO reflect baseline industry conditions, EPA developed technology frequency
factors to describe the percentage of the industry that already implements particular operations,
techniques, or practices that may be used to meet the requirements of the final rule. In some
cases, these frequency factors are based on an assumed performance category (i.e., high, medium,
and low performance) as estimated by U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). EPA also
t
developed ground water control frequency factors based on the location of the facility and current
state requirements for permeabilities of waste management storage units. In addition, EPA
developed nutrient basis frequency factors describing the distribution of farms that would apply
manure to soils on a nitrogen or phosphorus basis, land availability frequency factors describing
the distribution of farms with and without sufficient cropland to land apply the manure and
wastewater generated at the farm, and transportation frequency factors describing the distribution
of farms transporting excess manure and wastewater off site.
Some technologies included in the cost model, including composting and anaerobic
digestion, were assumed not to be present under baseline industry conditions. Therefore, EPA
6-1
-------
assumed all of the facilities incur the cost of implementing the technologies and did not develop
frequency factors for these technologies.
This section presents the frequency factors and the methodologies used to develop
them in the following subsections:
Section 6.1- Beef and Dairy Technology Frequency Factors;
Section 6.2 - Beef and Dairy Nutrient Basis Frequency Factors;
Section 6.3 - Beef and Dairy Land Availability Frequency Factors;
Section 6.4 - Swine and Poultry Technology Frequency Factors;
Section 6.5 - Swine and Poultry Nutrient Basis Frequency Factors;
Section 6.6 - Swine and Poultry Land Availability Frequency Factors; and
Section 6.7 - Ground Water Control Frequency Factors.
6.1
Beef and Dairy Technology Frequency Factors
Technology frequency factors reflect the percentage of operations that have a
particular operation, technique, or practice (e.g., settling basin) in place at baseline (i.e., prior to
implementation of the regulation). Frequency factors are based on geographic location, type and
size of operation, existing regulatory requirements, and overall status of the industry. EPA
developed technology frequency factors for practices or technologies included in the cost model,
including:
• Solids separation using earthen settling basins;
• Runoff controls (i.e., berms);
• Liquid land application (e.g., center pivot irrigation);
• Nutrient management planning (i.e., setbacks, lagoon markers, soil
sampling, manure sampling, recordkeeping, document preparation);
• Solids separation using concrete settling basins;
• Naturally lined ponds and lagoons; and
• Transportation.
6-2
-------
: Frequency factors were developed to represent the current implementation rate of
various practices used on operations. Since current implementation can vary significantly across
operations in a given sector, the frequency factors were developed to represent low, medium, and
high implementation costs based on farm performance. For example, operations classified as "low
implementation cost" generally tend to have already implemented the practice and thus "low" (or
no) additional costs are expected for such operations. Conversely, "high implementation cost"
operations are assumed to have little or low levels of implementation and are expected to have
"high" additional costs to implement a given practice or meet a certain standard. EPA assumed
that 50 percent of all facilities would incur "medium", costs, 25 percent of facilities would incur
"low" costs, and 25 percent would incur "high" costs.
EPA developed technology frequency factors that vary by farm performance using
the same methodology and source of USD A data. Section 6.1.1 discusses the development of
these frequency factors for beef feedlots, dairies, heifer operations, and veal operations.
Frequency factors for some technologies were not included in USDA's data. The development of
factors that were not presented in the USDA data that were assumed to vary by level of
performance is described in Section 6.1.2 for beef feedlots, dairies, heifer operations, and veal
operations. The remaining technology frequency factors are not assumed to vary by farm.
performance. EPA developed these remaining technology frequency factors using several different
data sources. Section 6.1.3 discusses these frequency factors for beef feedlots, dairies, heifer
operations, and veal operations. Section 6.1.4 discusses the frequency factors developed for the
swine and poultry cost model.
6.1.1
Performance-Based Frequency Factors Based on USDA Data
EPA received frequency factors from USDA as part of a document entitled
Estimation-of Private and Public Costs Associated with Comprehensive Nutrient Management
Plan Implementation: A Documentation (April 23, 2001). This document includes frequency
factors for three performance-based categories of facilities (low-performing, medium-performing,
and high-performing) for a series of "representative" farms defined by USDA in eight USDA
6-3
-------
defined regions. USD A defined high performers to be 25 percent of the facilities, medium
performers to be 50 percent of the facilities, and low performers to be 25 percent of the facilities.
EPA also used these percentages to calculate the number of facilities that are high, medium., and
low performers.
To use USDA's frequency factors in the cost models, EPA "mapped" USDA's
representative farms to its model farms and then weighted the frequency factors by the percent
distribution of farms within each region. The general methodology used to perform this
translation is provided below. See ERG's memorandum to the record Methodology to
Incorporate USDA Frequency Factors into Beef and Dairy Cost Model Methodology (ERG,
2001) for a more detailed description of the methodology and USDA data used for beef feedlots,
dairies, and heifer and veal operations.
Mapping USDA Representative Farms to EPA Model Farms
To use these performance-based frequency factors for beef feedlots, heifer
operations, dairies, and veal operations, EPA correlated the USDA representative farms and
regions to EPA's model farms and five geographic regions. To do this, EPA divided each USDA
region into individual states and then weight-averaged the frequency factors from each state in
that region to calculate the frequency factors for that region, according to the total number of
operations in each state.
EPA's cost methodology for beef feedlots and heifer operations uses a single
model farm to represent the costs of the majority of beef feedlots and heifer operations in the
country with greater than 300 head. USDA's frequency factors for beef are based on two
representative farms in eight geographic regions. The USDA factors are presented for the
following size groups:
>30;
>100;
30 - 500;
>500;
6-4
-------
30-1,000; and
>1,000 head.
EPA correlated these size groups to the Agency's size groups of 300 - 499 (Medium 1), 500 -
999 (Medium 2 and 3), and > 1,000 (Large 1) head. EPA applied USDA's assumptions for beef
feedlots to heifer operations since USDA's data did not include information for heifer operations.
EPA's cost methodology for dairies uses two model farms to represent the costs of
the majority of dairies in the country with greater than 200 head. The USD A methodology uses
five representative farms to reflect the current state of the industry. No "dairies with greater than
200 head'are represented by USDA's farm #1 and only a small portion are represented by
USDA's farm #2. Therefore, EPA used frequency factors from only USDA farms #3, #4, and #5.
The Agency did not compare veal operations because EPA assumes that all veal
operations currently have" appropriate waste management practices in place and would require
nutrient management planning.
Tables 6.1.1-1 and 6.1.1-2 present the correlation of EPA model farm components
to the USDA representative farm components for beef feedlots and dairies, respectively.
Weighting USDA Frequency Factors
To use USDA's frequency factors at EPA model farms, EPA first weighted the
frequency factors by the percent distribution of farms in a given USDA region. For example, if a
USDA region was described using representative farm #1 and representative farm #2, and the
USDA weighting factors indicate that 30 percent of operations in this region are represented by
farm #1 and 70 percent of operations are represented by farm #2, then the weighted frequency
factor for that region is:
Weighted frequency factor'= Frequency factor FannS1 x 0.3 + Frequency factor Faml#2 * 0.7
6-5
-------
Next, EPA determined the states included in the USDA regions and estimated how
many USDA facilities were in each state. EPA then calculated the percentage of the total number
of EPA facilities in each USDA region using its estimates of the number of facilities in each state.
These percentages provide the basis for weighting the USDA frequency factors to create the
frequency factor for the EPA region. Table 6.1.1-3 presents the portion of beef feedlots and
heifer operations and Table 6.1.1-4 presents the portion of dairies from the USDA region that fall
within the corresponding EPA region, expressed as a percentage of the total EPA beef feedlots,
heifer operations, and dairies in that region.
Table 6.1.1-1 "
Correlation of EPA Beef Model Farm Components and USDA Representative
Farm Components
Animal Type
Beef
EPA Model Farm
Partially paved drylot
Concrete pad
(Options 3 & 4)
Berms
Stormwater pond
Earthen settling basin
Solids land application
Liquid land application
Nutrient management
planning
Off-site transportation
•\,^--^^.-:^.^
Lot with smooth, hardened
surface
Concrete slab for manure
Adequate clean water
diversion system
Adequate runoff storage pond
Not listed
Appropriate solids collection/
spreading/transfer equipment
Appropriate liquid collection/
spreading/transfer equipment
Manure and soil testing
One-time documentation of
facility
Routine recordkeeping
Off-farm export
ntatiye Farm* . : ,:;
^XV^v-;'- .
Graded, curbed, fenced, lots
Not listed
Adequate clean water
diversion system
Adequate runoff storage pond
Adequate settling basin
Appropriate solids collection/
spreading/transfer equipment
Appropriate liquid collection/
spreading/transfer equipment
Manure and soil testing
One-time documentation of
facility
Routine recordkeeping
Off-farm export
This list includes all components included for that representative farm in all regions.
6-6
-------
Table 6.1.1-2
Correlation of EPA Dairy Model Farm Components and USDA
Representative Farm Components
Animal Type
Dairy
EPA. Model Farm
Berms
Concrete settling
basin
Anaerobic lagoon
Liquid land
application
Nutrient
management
planning
Off-site
transportation
USDA Representative Farm"
#3 - ,
Adequate clean
water diversion
system
Separator or settling.
basinb
Adequate liquid
storage
Appropriate liquid
spreading/transfer
equipment
Manure and soil
testing
One-time
documentation of
facility
Routine
recordkeeping
Off-farm export
" #4 "
Adequate clean
water diversion
system
Separator or settling
basinb
Adequate liquid
storage
Appropriate liquid
spreading/transfer
equipment
Manure and soil
testing
One-time . . . . .
documentation of
facility
Routine
recordkeeping
Off-farm export
#5
Adequate clean
water diversion
system
Separator or settling
basinb
Adequate liquid
storage
Appropriate liquid
spreading/transfer
equipment
Manure and soil
testing
One-time
documentation of
facility
Routine
recordkeeping
Off-farm export
"This list includes all components included for that representative farm in all regions.
bA footnote on the USDA tables indicates that 30 percent of operations have a separator or settling basins.
6-7
-------
Using the percentages in Tables 6.1.1-3 and 6.1.1-4, EPA calculated the weighted
frequency factors for each of the five EPA regions. For example, for beef feedlots in the EPA
Central region, a frequency factor can be calculated using the following formulas:
USDA Region A Frequency Factor x 0.10 = USDA portion A
USDA Region B Frequency Factor x 0.19 = USDA portion B
USDA Region C Frequency Factor x 0.15 = USDA portion C
USDA Region D Frequency Factor x 0.56 = USDA portion D
Sum of USDA portions = EPA regional frequency factor
Table 6.1.1-3
Percentage of EPA Beef Feedlots and Heifer Operations in USDA Regions
Animal Type
Beef
Heifer
EPA Region
Central
Mid-Atlantic
Midwest
Pacific
South
Central
Mid-Atlantic
Midwest
Pacific
South
USDA Regions"
"A
0.10
0
0.13
0
0
0.02
0
0.27
0
0
-B
0.19
0
0
1
0
0.48
0
0
1
0
C
0.15. ;
0
0.16
0
0
0.13
0
0.15
0
0
D
. 0.56, ,
0
0
0
0
0.38
0
0
0
0
•E
0;,
0.05
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
F
0
0
0.70
0
0
0
0
0.54
0
0
G
0
0.45
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
H
0
0.50
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
"Region A: MT,WY,ND,MN
Region B: CA, AZ, AK, HI, UT, NV, WA, OR, ID
Region C: CO.KS.NE.SD
Region D: TX.OK.NM
Region E: MA, RI, CN, VT, NH, ME
Region F: MO, IL, IN, OH, MI, WI, IA
Region G: PA,NY,NJ
Region H: VA, WV, MD, DE, NC, TN, KY, SC, GA, AL,
MS, FL, AR, LA
6-8
-------
Table 6.1.1-4
Percentage of EPA Dairies in USDA Regions
• -Animal Type :
Dairy
EPA Region
Central
Mid-Atlantic
Midwest
Pacific
South
USDA Regions"
Dairy Belt
0
0.74
1 ..,--
. ... o ...
0
Southeast
0
0.26
0
0
1
West
1
0
0
1
0
"Dairy Belt Region - MN, IA, MO, WI, IL, MI, IN, OH, PA, NY, VT, ND, SD, ME, KS, NJ, MD, DE, MA, Ct, RI, NH, ME
Southeast Region - KY, TN, PL, VA, WV, NC, SC, GA, AL, MS, AR, LA .. ._.,..
West Region - CA, OR, WA, ID, NM, TX, HI, AK, AZ, UT, NV, MX, WY, CO, OK .
Frequency Factors for Earthen Settling Basins
-•tt-'.-..
All regulatory options assume that beef feedlots and heifer operations require an
earthen basin to collect runoff. The regulatory options also assumed that dairies and veal
operations have concrete basins instead of earthen basins due to the higher flow of water from the
barn and parlor cleaning operations that enter the settling basin. Table 6.1.1-5 lists the percentage
of beef feedlots and heifer operations that would incur costs for earthen basins by size class,
region, and requirements.
Frequency Factors for Runoff Controls
Under all regulatory options, CAFOs are required to contain any runoff collecting
in potentially contaminated areas. For the purpose of estimating compliance costs, EPA assumes
that facilities will use berms to control runoff. Table 6.1.1-6 presents estimates of beef feedlots,
heifer operations, and dairies that will incur costs to install berms based on size class, -~
requirements, and regional location. EPA assumes that veal, swine, and poultry operations do not
require berms.
6-9
-------
Table 6.1.1-5
Percentage of Beef Feedlots and Heifer Operations Incurring Earthen
Basin Costs for All Regulatory Options
Animal
Type
Beef
and
Heifers
Size Class
Medium 1
Medium 2
Medium 3
Large 1
Large 2'
Performance
High
Medium
Low
High
Medium
Low
. . . •;,•. . - . ••Region.;. -;;.:. ,., . -s,-r.r
Central
100%
80%
40%
100%
80%
40%
Mid-Atlantic
100%
80%
40%
100%
80%
40%
Midwest !
100%
80%
40%
100%
- . 80%
40%
•• Pacific
100%
80%
40%
100%
80%
40%
South
100%
80%
40%
100%
80%
40%
•Large 2 size class represents only beef feedlots.
Frequency Factors for Liquid Land Application
Under all regulatory options, beef feedlots, heifer operations, and dairies are
assumed to land apply their liquid manure and process wastewaters. Table 6.1.1-7 presents
estimates of beef feedlot, heifer operations, and dairies that will incur costs (i.e, purchase liquid
land application equipment) to apply liquid manure and wastewaters to .their cropland based on
size class, requirements, and regional location. EPA assumes that all veal operations have
appropriate equipment for liquid land application and, therefore, do not incur any additional costs.
Frequency Factors for Nutrient Management Planning
Under all regulatory options, beef feedlots, heifer operations, and dairies are
assumed to incur costs associated with nutrient management planning. Nutrient management
planning includes setbacks, lagoon depth markers, soil sampling, manure sampling, recordkeeping,
and document preparation. Table 6.1.1-8 presents estimates of beef feedlots, heifer operations,
and dairies that will incur costs to comply with the nutrient management planning requirements
based on size class, requirements, and regional location. All veal operations (100 percent) are
assumed to incur costs for nutrient management planning.
6-10
-------
Table 6.1.1-6
Beef Feedlots, Heifer Operations, and Dairies Incurring Costs to Install and
Maintain Berms for All Regulatory Options
Animal Type
Beef and
Heifers
Dairy
Size Class
Medium 1
Medium 2
Medium 3
Large 1
Large 2"
Medium 1
Medium 2
Medium 3
Large 1
Performance
High
Medium
Low
High
Medium
Low
•• High
Medium
Low
High
Medium
Low
High
Medium
Low
High
Medium
Low
High
Medium
Low
High
Medium
Low
High
Medium
Low
Region
Central
74%
56%
32%
71%
54%
'.29%
74%
56%
32%
67%
51%
23%
50%
40%
0%
30%
10%
0%
30%
10%
0%
30%
10%
0%
30%
10%
0%
Mid-
Atlantic
92%
32%
21%
92%
32%
21%
92%
32%
21%
92%
32%
21%
92%
32%
21%
34%
21%
7%
34%
21%
7%
34% ,
21%
7%
33%
20%
8%
Midwest
59%
46%
12%
55%
43%
6%
59%
46%
12%
50%
40%
0%
50%
40%
0%
59%
36%
14%
59%
36%
14%
59%
36%
14%
' 58%
38%
18%
Pacific
50%
40% ,
0%
50%
40%
0%
50%
40%
0%
50%
40%
0%
50%
40%
0%
30%
10%
0%
' 30%
10%
0%
30%
10%
0%
30%
10%
0%
South
85%
65%
43%
84%
65%
43%
85%
65%
43%
85%
65%
43%
85%
65%
43%
40%
20%
0%
40%
20%
0%
40%
20%
0%
40%
20%
0%
"Large 2 size class represents only beef feedlots.
6-11
-------
Table 6.1.1-7
Beef Feedlots, Heifer Operations, and Dairies Incurring Costs for Liquid Land
Application for All Regulatory Options
Animal
Type
Beef and
Heifers
Dairy - Flush
Dairy - Hose
Size Class
Medium 1
Medium 2
Mediums
Large 1
Large 2"
Medium 1
Medium 2
Medium 3
Large 1
Medium 1
Medium 2
Large 1
Requirements
High
Medium
Low
High_
Medium
Low
High
Medium
Low
High
Medium
Low
High
Medium
Low
High
Medium
Low
High
Medium
Low
High
Medium
Low
Central
100%
,70%
32%
100%
70%
33%
100%
70% .
32%
100%
70%
34%
100%
70%
40%
50%
30%
10%
50%
30%
10%
50%
30%
10%
Mid-
Atlantic
.80% _-,
56%
26%
,80%
56%
26%
80%
56%
26%
80%
56%
26%
80%
56%
26%
55%
40%
21%
57%
39%
19%
55%
40%
21%
Region
Midwest
,100%
70%
37%
100%
70%
38%
100%
70%
37%
100%
70%
40%
100%
70%
40%
92%
57%
14%
91%
55%
13%
92%
57%
14%
"Pacific
100%
,70% ,
40%
100%
70%
40%
100%
70%
40%
100%
70%
40%
100%
70%
40%
50%
30%
10%
50%
30%
10%
50%
30%
io%-
South
. 97%
67%
24%
.. 97% __
67%
24%
97%
67%
24%
97%
67%
24%
97%
67%
24%
65%
51%
37%
65%
51%
37%
65%
51%
37%
'Large 2 size class represents only beef feedlots.
6-12
-------
Table 6.1.1-8
Beef Feedlots, Heifer Operations, and Dairies Incurring Costs for Nutrient
Management Planning for All Regulatory Options
Animal
Type
Beef and
Heifers
Dairy - Flush
Dairy -
Scrape
Size Class
Medium 1
Medium 2
Medium 3
. Large 1
Large 2a •
Medium 1
Medium 2
Medium 3
Large 1
Medium 1
Medium 2
Medium 3
Large 1
Requirements
High
Medium
Low
.High
Medium
. Low
High •
Medium
Low
High
Medium
Low
High
Medium
- Low
i * " ¥ ~ Region
Central
100%
90%
80%
100%
90%
80%
100%
90%
80%
100%
90%
80%
100%
90%
80%
Mid-
Atlantic :
100%
95%
79%
100%
95%
79%
63%
57%
50%
64%
58%
51%
63%
57% .
50%
Midwest
100%
90%
80%
100% .
90%
80%
100%
90%
80%
100%
90%
80%
100%
90%
80%
Pacific
100%
90%
80%
100% .....
90%
80%
100%
90%
80%
100%
90%
80%
100%
90%
80%
South
100%
93%
80%
100%
93%
80%
100%
90%
80%
100%
90%
80%
100%
90%
80%
"Large 2 size class represents only beef feedlots.
6-13
-------
6.1.2
Other Performance-Based Frequency Factors
For some technologies, USD A did not provide data based on farm performance.
Therefore, EPA used implementation rates identified in literature, which are provided as single
values rather than a range of values. Because EPA believes that the implementation of these
technologies varies according to farm performance, EPA used the single values to calculate the
range of frequency factors for these technologies using the following methodology:
1)
2)
Identify the overall frequency of implementation of the .technology or practice
Let X = the overall implementation, or frequency factor.
If X 25%, then
Low Frequency factor,
Medium Frequency Factor
Highest Frequency Factor
If 25%75%, then
Low Frequency factor
Medium Frequency Factor
Highest Frequency Factor
0% .
0%
"X -25%
PC r 25%)*. 50%
100%
PC- 75%) -s-25%
100%
100%
Thus, it was assumed that low implementation cost operations had a frequency
factor of 100 percent (100 percent of facilities had implemented the practice) and high
implementation cost operations had a frequency factor of 0 percent. "Medium implementation
cost" was then calculated by assuming that 25 percent of the operations incurred low
implementation cost, 25 percent incurred high implementation cost, arid the remaining 50 percent
incurred medium implementation cost. For example, if literature reported the actual
implementation rate to be 65 percent, the low and high implementation cost frequency factors
were assumed to be 100 and 0 percent, respectively. The medium implementation cost frequency
factor would be computed as 80 percent.
6-14
-------
The frequency factors for concrete settling basins in the beef and dairy cost model was calculated
in this way, as shown in Table 6.1.2-1.
Table 6.1.2-1
Frequency Factors Identified from Literature and Used to Calculate Low,
Medium, and High Frequency Factors for Beef and Dairy Cost Model
Technology or
Practice
Concrete Settling
Basin
Size Class
Medium
Large
Overall Frequency
Factor
20%
r •••~33%""1' -
Implementation Cost Frequency Factor
Low' t
0%
0% -v"
Medium
~ ""0%
• 16%-:
High -
80%
100%
6.1.3
Other Technology Frequency Factors
Some of the technology components ofEPA's cost models are not based on
USDA-'s performance-based data. Frequency factors for naturally lined ponds, lagoons, and
transportation costs are based on several different data sources and are described below.
Naturally Lined Pond and Lagoon Frequency Factors
The cost models for beef feedlots, heifer operation, dairies, veal operations, swine
operations, and wet layer operations include naturally lined ponds and lagoons. This subsection
presents the frequency factors for beef feedlot, dairies, heifer and veal operations.
Using information from site visits and state and federal regulations, EPA assumed
that all large-sized beef feedlots and all large dairies have adequate storage for process
wastewater consistent with the 1974 regulation. EPA developed frequency factors for medium-
sized beef feedlots with naturally lined ponds using site visit information and best professional
judgment. Based on discussions with the Professional Dairy Heifer Growers Association, EPA
6-15
-------
assumed that heifer operations operate like beef feedlots; therefore, the Agency used the same
frequency factors for naturally lined ponds for both types of operations.
^ j i .j ^ » •
Frequency factors for medium-sized dairies with naturally lined ponds are based on
site visit information, NAHMS data, and current state and federal regulations. According to
NAHMS, 13.5 percent of dairies in the 500-to-699-head group and 4.3 percent hi the greater than
700 head group do not have any kind- of waste-storage facility. Of the sites visited by EPA, only
one dairy had neither a lagoon nor large storage-tank. Therefore, EPA assumes that the larger the
dairy, the more likely it is to have a lagoon or other waste storage facility. According to ~
NAHMS, dairies of 200 head and-above in the East and Midwest (31:4 and 16.9'percent, ~ "
respectively) are less likely to have lagoons or storage than dairies hi the West (7.9 percent)":
EPA assumes that the smaller dairies (less than 700 mature dairy cows) comprise the largest
percentage of dairies without waste "storage hi each region.
Based on site visits and discussions with the American Veal Association, EPA
assumes that all veal operations have sufficient lagoon capacity to manage all of the manure and
wastewater generated. Table 6.1.3-1 presents the percentage of beef feedlots, heifer operations,
dairies, and veal operations that would incur costs to install a naturally lined pond or lagoon under
Options 1,2,4, 5A, and 6. The percentages do not vary by region. EPA also used these
frequency factors to determine the percentage of facilities requiring additional storage capacity
under Option 7.
Transportation Frequency Factors
EPA developed frequency factors for facilities requiring the off-site transportation
of excess manure and waste for all animal types using hiformation from existing state regulations
(ERG, 2000; EPA, 1999). Frequency factors were developed only for Category 2 facilities
because the percentage of Category 1 and 3 facilities transporting excess manure and waste
remains the same under all regulatory options. EPA assumes that facilities required by their states
to land apply at agronomic rates are using nitrogen-based application rates and already incur the
cost of transporting excess manure and waste off site. EPA assumes that no facilities are
6-16
-------
currently meeting phosphorus-based agronomic application of manure and, therefore, assumes
that all operations costed for phosphorus-based application will incur costs to transport excess
manure. ....
:-"".,.=
Table 6.1.3-1
Percentage of Beef Feedlots, Heifer Operations, Dairies, and Veal Operations
Incurring Costs to Install a Naturally Lined Pond or Lagoon
; •/-' ?-;AiimaCTyp0'";tHS'
Beef and Heifers
Dairy
Veal
M;;Mlip^-jd^s^j|,j:'l;
Medium 1
Medium 2
Medium 3
Large 1 j_' •
-Large 2a
Medium 1
Medium 2
Medium 3
Large 1
All
J^^tiHti^e^l^iU^e^^
' 50%
50% :"
' 50%
0% -•;•-
0%
10% :
10%
10%
0%
0%
"Large 2 size class represents only beef feedlots.
To calculate the frequency factors for Category 2 beef feedlots and dairies, EPA
determined the threshold requirements for nitrogen-based agronomic application of manure for 22
major dairy and beef-producing states based on state regulations. The Agency then used industry
profile and Census of Agriculture data to determine the number of facilities in each state above
both the state threshold and EPA's proposed threshold. EPA recorded the number of facilities
above both thresholds by region; these facilities are assumed to already Incur transportation costs
for excess manure. EPA compared the number of facilities assumed to incur transportation costs
with the number of facilities above the proposed threshold to arrive at regional frequency factors
representing transportation costs. States other than the 22 included in the analysis were assumed
not to require nitrogen-based agronomic application of animal wastes. EPA assumes that heifer
6-17
-------
operations operate the same as beef feedlots and, therefore, heifer operations use the same
frequency factors as beef feedlots. EPA assumes that all veal operations are Category 1
operations and therefore, did not develop transportation frequency factors for these operations.
Table 6.1.3-2 presents the percentage of Category 2 beef feedlots, heifer operations, and dairies
incurring costs for transporting excess manure and waste off site.
' Table 6.1.3-2 __
Percentage of Category 2 Beef Feedlots, Heifer Operations", and "Dairies
Incurring Costs for Transporting Excess Manure and Waste Off Site
Animal Type
Beef
Heifer
Daiiy
- SizeCIass
Medium 1
Medium 2
Medium 3
Large 1
Large 2
Medium 1
Medium 2
MediumS
Large 1
Medium 1
Medium 2
Medium 3
Large 1
Region __ „
Central
100%
13%
100%
13%
100%
46%
Mid-
Atlantic
100%
6%
100%
6%
100%
34%
Midwest
78%
33%
82%
33%
82%
77%
Pacific
100%
100%
,100%
100%
100%
100%
I
South
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
54%
6.2
Beef and Dairy Nutrient Basis Frequency Factors
Several cost modules compute component costs separately for both nitrogen- and
phosphorus-based application and are adjusted based on frequency factors that indicate the use of
the component in the industry. For Options 1 and 1 A, the cost model estimates costs for all
operations for nitrogen-based application, and for Option 2A, estimates costs for all operations
for phosphorus-based application. However, under the remaining options, EPA used the soil test
map from USDA's Agricultural Phosphorus and Eutrophication book (USDA ARS, 1999) to
6-18
-------
determine the percentage of facilities in each state that would require nitrogen-based versus
phosphorus-based application rates. The soil map identified the percentage of soil samples in each
state that had soil test P (phosphorus) levels in the "high"or above" categories. States colored red
on the map reported high or above soil test P levels in more than 50 percent of the samples.
Phosphorus levels of greater than 50 parts per million are generally considered "high." States
colored pink/orange reported high or above soil test P levels in 25 to 50 percent of the samples,
and states colored green reported high or above soil test P levels in less than 25.percent of the
samples. , . - ^
Using these results for soil test P levels, EPA made the following assumptions:
Facilities located in "green" states would require only nitrogen-based
applications;
Facilities located in "pink/orange" states would require 40 percent
phosphorus-based and 60 percent nitrogen-based applications; and
Facilities located in "red" states would require 60 percent phosphorus-
based and 40 percent nitrogen-based applications.
EPA adopted this 40/60 and 60/40 split of applications to account for areas within a given state
that would have soils with low phosphorus levels.
Using these determinations, EPA calculated the percentage of operations that
would require phosphorus-based applications under Options 2 through 7 for each region. These
percentages were calculated by animal type, size class, and regions using the following equation:
PFacso/0=
where:
fStateFacR
\ Total Fac
P Facs%
State FacR =
State FacO =
Total Fac =
6()0/o
State FacO
Total Fac
[6-2]
Percentage of facilities, by region, that would require
phosphorus-based application
Number of facilities in a red state
Number of facilities in an orange/pink state
Total number of facilities in that size class and region
6-19
-------
%Pbased
Percentage of facilities that would require phosphorus-based
application for that given state.
EPA calculated the percentage of nitrogen-based application facilities in each
region and size class using the following equation:
N Facs =. 100% - P Facs
[6-3]
where:
N Facs = Percentage of facilities that would require nitrogen-based
application ,,..., ill. „„„:„,:
P Facs = Percentage of facilities that would require phosphorus-based
application.
Table 6.2-1 presents the percentages of nitrogen-based and phosphorus-based
facilities by animal type, by size class, and by region for Options 2 through 7.
6.3
Beef and Dairy Land Availability Frequency Factors
All operations fall into one of three land availability categories depending on the
amount of on-site cropland available for manure application:
Category 1 operations have sufficient land to land apply all of their
generated manure and wastewater at appropriate agronomic rates. No
manure is transported off site.
Category 2 operations do not have sufficient land to land apply all of their
generated manure and wastewater at appropriate agronomic rates. The
excess manure after agronomic application is transported off site.
Category 3 operations do not have any available land for manure
application. All generated manure and wastewater is transported off site.
Facility counts for swine and broiler operations were provided by USDA NRCS
including land availability category; therefore, these model farms did not require disaggregation
using the land availability frequency factors. However, facility counts for layers, pullets, turkeys,
6-20
-------
and cattle operations were not provided by land" availability category!! Therefore^ EPA applied the
land availability categories to the facility counts for these operations.^
Table 6.2-1 '^,L •~_i-i, "
Percentage of Nitrogen-Based and Phosphorus-Based Application Facilities
Animal
Type
Beef and
Heifers
Dairy
Veal
Size CJass
Medium 1
Medium 2
Medium 3
Large 1
Large 2
Medium 1
Medium 2
Medium 3
Large 1
Medium 1
Medium 2
Medium 3
Application
Percentage Basis
Nitrogen
Phosphorus-. ,^
Nitrogen
Phosphorus
Nitrogen -
Phosphorus
Nitrogen
Phosphorus
Nitrogen -
Phosphorus
Nitrogen
Phosphorus
Nitrogen
Phosphorus
Nitrogen
Phosphorus
Nitrogen
Phosphorus
Nitrogen
Phosphorus
Nitrogen
Phosphorus
Nitrogen
Phosphorus
' - * ,Re8*on
Central
53%
47% -^
54%
46%
48%
52% •
45%
55%
46%
54%
46%
54%
47%
53%
49%
51%
56%
44%
40%
60%
40%
60%
40%
60%
Mid-
Atlantic
~~51%~
.49% .
51%
49%
49%
. 51%
49%
51%
60%
40%
47%
53%
46% '
54%
44%
56%
44%
56%
60%
40%
0%
0%
0%
0%
Midwest
•- -60%!^"
•" 40%
60%
40%
60% -
- 40%
61%
39%
61%
39%
47%
53'%
47%
53%
49%
51%
50%.
50%
44%
56%
44%
56%
44%
56%
Pacific
40%
60%
,40%
60%
40%
60%
40%
60%
' 40%
60%
40%
60%
40%
60%
40%
60%
40%
60%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
South
49%
51%
55%
45%
50%
50%
0%
0%
0%
0%
56%
44%
57%
43%
48%"
52%
47%
53%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
6-21
-------
EPA calculated the percentage of facilities in each of these categories using USDA
data. USDA conducted a national analysis of the 1997 Census of Agriculture data to estimate the
manure production at livestock facilities (Kellogg, R, et al, 2000). As part of this analysis, USDA
estimated the number of confined livestock facilities that produce more,manure than they can
land-apply on their available cropland and pasturelands at agronomic rates for nitrogen and
phosphorus and the number of confined livestock operations that do not have any available
cropland orpastureland. This analysis also identified the amount of excess manure at the facilities
with insufficient land.
EPA used USDA's facility counts to develop the percentage of facilities that are
classified as Category 2 and 3 under a 100-percent nitrogen-based application scenario and a 100-
percent phosphorus-based application scenario. EPA estimated the percentage of facilities
classified as Category 2 and 3 using the following equations:
Percent Category 2 Facs =
No. Farms with Excess Manure (N or P) and Cropland
Total No. Confined Livestock Farms
[6-4]
Percent Category 3 Facs =
No. Farms with Excess Manure (N or P) and No Cropland
Total No. of Confined Livestock Farms
where:
Percent Category 2 Facs
Percent Category 3 Facs
No. Farms with Excess
Manure (N or P) and
Cropland
No. Farms with Excess
Manure (N or P) and
No Cropland
Total No. of Confined
Livestock Farms
[6-5]
Percentage of facilities classified as
Category 2
Percentage of facilities classified as
Category 3
Number of facilities with excess
manure on a nitrogen or phosphorus basis
and some cropland for land application
Number of facilities with excess
manure on a nitrogen or phosphorus basis
and no cropland for land application
Total number of confined livestock farms
EPA estimated the percentage of facilities classified as Category 1 using the following equation:
6-22
-------
Percent Category .l.Facs = 100% - Percent Category 2 - Percent Category 3
[6-5]
where:
Percent Category 1 Facs
Percent Category 2
Percent Category 3
Percentage of facilities classified as
Category 1
Percentage of facilities classified as
Category 2
Percentage of facilities classified as
Category 3
Option 1 uses only nitrogen-based application factors, while Options 2 through 7
use a combination of both nitrogen- and phosphorus-based factors. Table 6.3-1 .presents EPA's
estimated percentage of Category 1, 2, and 3 facilities using nitrogen- and phosphorus-based
applications. ., ...
Table 6.3-1
Percentage of Category 1,2, and 3 Facilities Using Nitrogen- and
Phosphorus-Based Applications
Animal
Type
Beef
Dairy
Heifer
Veal
Size
Class
Medium 1
Medium. 2
Medium 3
Large 1
Large 2
Medium 1
Medium 2
Medium 3.
Large 1
Medium 1
Medium 2
Medium 3
Large 1
Medium 1
Medium 2
Medium 3
Nitrogen-Based Application -'-v
Category 1
84%
68%
8%
50%
27%
84%
68%
100%
Category 2
9%
21%
53%
36%
51%
9%
21%
0%
Category 3
7%
11%
39%
14%
22%
7%
11%
0%
Phosphorus-Based Application
Category;!
62%
22%
1%
25%
10%
62%
22%
100%
^Category!
31%
67%
60%
61%
68%
31%
67%
0%
Category 3
7%
11%
39%
14%
22%
7%
11%
0%
6-23
-------
6.4
Poultry and Swine Technology Frequency Factors
Frequency factors were developed to represent the current implementation rate of
various practices used on operations. Since current implementation can vary significantly across
operations in a given sector, the frequency factors were developed to represent low, medium, and
high implementation costs. For example, operations classified as "low implementation cost"
generally tend to have already implemented the practice and thus "low" (or no) additional costs
are expected for such operations. Conversely, "high implementation cost" operations are
assumed to have little or low levels of implementation and are expected to have "high" additional
costs to implement a given practice or meet a certain standard. Data received from USDA were
presented in this manner for some technologies and practices, including manure testing, soil
testing, record keeping, mortality composting, and adequate mortality storage (Kellogg, 2002).
In some cases, implementation rates in the literature are provided as single values
rather than a range of values. Thus, it was assumed that low implementation cost operations had
a frequency factor of 100 percent (100 percent of facilities had implemented the practice) and high
implementation cost operations had a frequency factor of 0 percent. "Medium implementation
cost" was then calculated by assuming that 25 percent of the operations incurred low
implementation cost, 25 percent incurred high implementation cost, and the remaining 50 percent
incurred medium implementation cost. For example, if literature reported the actual
implementation rate to be 65 percent, the low and high implementation cost frequency factors
were assumed to be 100 and 0 percent, respectively. The medium implementation cost frequency
factor would be computed as 80 percent. In those cases where the medium implementation factor
calculation produced results that were not possible, the low or high frequency factor would be
adjusted down or up, as appropriate, until a realistic medium frequency factor resulted. For
example, if the literature-reported implementation rate was 80 percent, the low and medium
frequency factors would be 100 percent and the high frequency factor would be adjusted up to 20
percent (rather than 0 percent).
6-24
-------
Where data from USDA were not available, EPA .used frequency factors obtained
from other sources, which varied by sector, component, or practice. Industry and USD A data
were used as the basis for most of .the frequency factors for layers and swine; analysis of state and
federal regulations was used primarily for broilers and turkeys. EPA's report on state regulatory
programs (USEPA, 1999) was also used for all animal sectors. Costs were not attributed to
CAFO model farms when state regulations specify standards or require practices equal to or more
stringent than the proposed technology options.
Because the literature and industry provided data for the broiler and turkey sectors
were generally not detailed enough to generate frequency factors, EPA reviewed the specific
regulatory language and summaries of regulations for 12 major poultry-producing states regarding
requirements for nutrient management plans (NMPs) at broiler and turkey farms (Tetra Tech,
2000). Requirements were considered for farms in two size groups: 300 to 1,000 animal units
(AU) and greater than 1,000 AU. All broiler and turkey farms were assumed to use^dry waste
management systems.
From the analysis of state and federal regulations, EPA determined that a few
states already require broiler and turkey farms to implement some of the components of an NMP.
Except as specified for groundwater and surface water requirements, and in cases where select
frequency factors could be based on available industry data, the analysis from these 12 states was
used to calculate regional frequency factors. These regional frequency factors approximate the
number of farms that are currently required to implement NMP components and therefore already
incur costs for these components.
Weighted averages were used to estimate frequency factors for each NMP
component (for 300 to 1,000 AU and >1,000 AU), as illustrated in the example in Table 6.4-1.
The weight reflects the percentage of operations in the entire region already incurring the costs of
that component.
6-25
-------
Table 6.4-1
Illustration of Method to Calculate Frequency Factors from Weighted
Averages
State
A
B
C
D
Number of Farms"
10
40
20
20
100
Component Required?"
Yes
No
Yes
No
",:::.' ..Weight;-. •, •
10
0
20
0
JlilC IlUIJlUwl Ul JLttllllO t\Jt ui\j*i\sii3 cu*u tuu,*v<^j*j vtiAAWiv. »*»»»»«• w»~«- ___-,., __ — ,_, j, „
different for broilers versus turkeys. 1997 Census of Agriculture data (USDOC, 1999) were used to determine the number of
farms in each state within the two size ranges, 300 to 1,000 AU and >1,000 AU.
k Components were assumed not to be required for states other than the 12 reviewed.
Technology Frequency Factors for Poultry and Swine
Data used to determine frequency factors for poultry and swine varied upon the
sector and component or practice. Industry and USDA data were used as the basis for most of
the frequency factors for layers (United.Egg Producers/United Egg Association and Capitolink,
1999) and swine (USDA APHIS, 1995 andNPPC, 1998), whereas analysis of state and federal
regulations was used primarily for broilers and turkeys. In addition, frequency factors were also
derived from data provided by USDA NRCS (2002) provided to EPA electronically on February
6,2002. USDA NRCS data included frequency factors for three performance-based categories of
facilities (low performing, medium performing, and high performing) for a series of
"representative" farms defined by USDA. Frequency factors are presented in Tables 6.4-2
through 6.4-8 for the various combinations of sector, region, size class, and performance level.
Literature and industry data for the broiler and turkey .sectors was generally not
detailed enough to generate frequency factors. Instead, EPA reviewed the specific regulatory
language and summaries of regulations for 12 major poultry-producing states regarding
requirements for nutrient management plans (NMPs) at broiler and turkey facilities (Tetra Tech,
2000). Requirements were considered for both medium and large facilities. All broiler and turkey
6-26
-------
facilities were assumed to use dry waste management systems. Erom the analysis of state and
federal regulations, EPA determined that a few states akeady require broiler and turkey facilities
to implement some of the components of a NMP. Except as specified for ground water and
surface water requirements, and in cases where select frequency factors could be based on
available industry data, the analysis from these 12 states were used to calculate regional frequency
factors. These state regulation based frequency factors approximate the number of facilities that
are currently required to implement NMP components and, therefore, must already incur costs for
these components. Weighted averages were used to estimate frequency factors for each
component. .
Assessment of Ground Water Link to Surface Water. The frequency factors
for these assessments at layer (United Egg Producers/United Egg Association and Capitolink,
1999) facilities was based upon industry data, while the frequency factors for broiler and turkey
facilities were conservatively assumed to be zero. The frequency factors for swine facilities was
based upon a review of state regulations that already require lagoons to be lined.
Surface Water Monitoring and O&M. The frequency factors for surface water
monitoring at layer facilities were assumed to be zero based on site visits, those for swine were
based upon industry data (USDA APHIS, 1995), and those for broiler and turkey facilities were
derived from an analysis of state regulations (Tetra Tech, 2000).
Soil Augers. The frequency factors for soil augers at layer (United Egg
Producers/United Egg Association and Capitolink, 1999) and swine (NPPC, 1998) facilities were
based upon industry data, while the frequency factors for broiler and turkey facilities were derived
from an analysis of state regulations (Tetra Tech, 2000). In cases where states require soil testing
at broiler and turkey facilities, it was assumed that soil augers (or an equivalent technology) are
also required or otherwise available to the facility, and thus not costed.
6-27
-------
6*
S c
.3 «
VO
03
H
a> pq
.. cu
£ '•*
,O
tt-1
I
4,-i.
;-.--
V
1
f
|i
1
g
1
i
!|
p
is
r
•«!f«ij
S
1
i
e(''
a
1
1
1
1
ss
1
s?
ft
^ •
"11
•?4
-,.^;-
t, \\(
|
a?
§
1
iff
1
^
M
4*^
^|
?!
^
1
1
:4jf
^'
a
i
1
1
cc
11
v*?
§
s
CA
*5^
1
f'"1
it*
w
;
1
S
1
;
p.
1
<
>
3
c
o
o
o
o
CD
0
O
CD
O
O
o
0
o
CD
O
0
^^ ^
M
O
Already assess GW
CO
a
"5
&
&
o
o
o
o
o
CD
O
o
0
0
CD
O
o
*""^
^"^
s
r«
SW monitoring; 0(
5
s
3
)
£
O
O
o
o
o
o
CD
O
o
o
o
0
o
o
*••*
0
0
a
'c
CO
CO
5
a
s
on
>
S
£
CO
CN
CN
O
in
o
CO
CN
o
CN
O
o\
v§
CD
O
VO
CN
^
*
Manure sampler
CO
5
8
10
1
3
J
o
o
o
o
0
o
o
o.
VO
o
o
VO
CN
o
—
*
1
1
*«
o
•1
£
1
CO
Jj.
c
CO
CO
g
3
10
S
+2
CO
CN
CN
O
>n i
oo
CO
CN
O
CN
g
VO
VO
o
O
VO
CN
O
-
*
pment and NMP
« Initial NMP develc
on-farm recurring
1
>o
^
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
VO
VO'
o
o
VO
CN
—
*
Ui
0
>
£
CN
CN
O
~
0
CO
CN
O
oj
o
o\
o
o
{/
§
£
a
•5
S
0
£
t/
O
3
S
10
S
3
CN
O
~
in
oo
CO
CN
o
~
o
o
o
o
0
"3
Storm water— O&l
o
3
p
10
S
S
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
s
<*
Stream buffer and
5
0
a
So
>
'o
CN
in'
i/i
oo
CO
CN
<-'
CN
0,
O
O
o
1
c.
I
J
•g"g
« s
«!
o
o
o
o
o
CD
'-H
CD
O
CD
CD
O
O
f— <
o
CD
O
O
o
o
o
CD
O
O
o
t— 4
o
Feeding strategies
3
D
o
o
o
o
o
o
r"-1
o
CD
O
=>
o
CD
O
2
2
2
y
2
2
1 or trade
o
ca
c
o
C
a
C
•)
4
a
D
0
CO
o
ON
VO
CO
VO
OS
N
CJ
VO
OS
\
VO
OS
I
0
t.
c
c
a
1
Q
p
CD
CN
•-1
'-'
•— '
O
CN
O
•— "
CN
1 — '
—
C^
c
_«
"c.
CO
/D
'V*
a
D
•— '
o
CN
i—1
•-1
CN
O
'— <
CN
*— •
•—
O
Manure testing
i
s
Q
p
"- '
—
CN
-
•-1
CN
O
•— <
fN
*~*
— <
O
M
_C
Q
c
O
fl
Pi
A
^
J
Q
D
CN
^
ON
OO
00
CO
vd
v^
/%
m
oo
oo
bO
c
jjMortality — compo
8
§
1 •
.5
1
d
1
°T
||
CL, X
•g m
e i
•£? ^
a?
Cn in
1 S'
^ .SP
IK
,CT 5^
to CN
II o
^ a
1/3 "g
8"!
•a &
& 1
T3 0
IIMortalitv— U&M
Note: GW = groin
a Weighted averag
6-28
-------
w>
O
,VO
«t
H
*i
S ^
•s2
•SH
* * JjS
3 *«
CS M
fe g
a j?
Kl&l
&;XlP^8
if$m»ji
^sl^^M
1
I/
$
*
1
|M
:
i
1
:
|
i
|S>
1
i
I
%
x$;
ti
i
s
i
fe
j£
i
F
it
|
i
1
i
i
j:
i
xi1
9
m
w
I
I
1
1
<£
i
I
I
Sft
^
i
sfS
•w-
«•
*§
i
I
If
i
§
i
i^
£?
i
ir
r
1
i
i
81
•S
s
«f
fi
p
^'
V'^K--
-%
i
i
p
i»
-SK
1
RK
1
a<-
i>',
£"•':
1
c
s
<
§
CO
C
»
3
5
J3
sD
Q
3
CO
03
?
>
CO
C
_C
c
E
u
Pi
ji
i
!X>
|
5
3
5
/i
CO
C
_c
c
d
Pi
J
_«
ex:
f
5
/I
co
j
0
a
Pi
.a
£
00
0
-.
o
00
co
"o
CN
O
O
o
•<*•
>
X
3
co
J
J
!
<
State Regulations
<*
o
<=>
oo
rj
vb
CN
O
O
O
0
Tf
3
3
1
j
>
I"
3
— i
5-
3
J
/)
State Regulations
0
CO
o
o
o
o
o
1 initial NMP development and NMP
on-farm recurring
W
J
0
i
pi
9
a
5l
^
o
00
m
<_>
vd
J
3
3
3
a
3
«
J
jgulations
f£
1
c
(/I
<_>
O
<_>
^J
CO
5
3
>
3
>
3
5
.j
/3
CO
j
c
5
Pi
|
r/i
°
u
o
o
=a
>
3
3
lo
CO
j
C
5
(^
|
r/1
°
O
o
o
o
o
i
t
i
)
H
P
r>
3
>
3
/)
aulations
PH
(1
3
^^
°
o
o
o
o
o
o
3
>
>
&
Q
«
s
rt
Site visits and
industry consult.
/•>
O
>o
^
O
o
^
>o
o
1^1
o
CO
>
i
>
5
5
JO
3
3
>
)
CN
O
O
CN
OH
a.
CO
»o
vo
2
CO
VO
tr>
2
»r>
^^ ^
VO
o
CO
CO
3
n
5
C
3
)
Z,
~)
V.
i
<
CJ
»o
f-
^)-
>o
&;
»o
-3-
»n
<5N
>O
•^1-
o
o
>n
o
CT\
«-)
^f
0
o
3
U.
1
<
V
0
~
f\
o
•— '
CN
— <
O
o
s
o
o
o
o
CN
I
3
>
O
S}
V.
1
<
K
O
"
CN
O
•—i
CN
— i
O
O
o
CN
O
o
o
3
IP
n
>
>
3
5
H
ty
1
<;
Q
V.
2
—
^
o
— *
CN
— '.
O
0
o
CN
O
o
o
o
CN
£
\
>
S
3
3
o
y,
VI.
<,
%
<
Q
-j.
c^
—<
•^
t~
?
•—1
•*
C~-
•^f
^
•«)•
O
3
0
§
o
g>
3
\
3
o
^
\
5
c
(0
c:
'CD
•o
co
jj
2
Q.
0
2
s
cB
II
s1-
c i
?!
® ^3
i: S
3 X
«g
D-0
zX
,_-x
lii
S x
Sio
^ T3
CO JB
«"|
i i
> 0
•? (D
S s
o>9>
II CD
> "O
> O
•\ 4^
°.f»
o> «
0 g
6-29
-------
> en
O
U
vo
03
6-30
-------
I
*©
JN O
© CJ
M
g
w
8
«
•4
^
S3
H
II
TO [V.
JM F^
© a>
S3 SH
_ «
O "
O .3
•sS
O
03
g
ng
ti
3o
If
It
o S
3 X
ater,
mputed as
ted
6-31
-------
ve
Tf
vd
o
2
«
H
S
6-32