# Devel o p m ent Document f o r the Fi nal Revi sions t o t h e

Nati onal Pollut a nt Disch a rge Eli m ination Syst em Regulati on

and the Effluent Guidelines for

Concent r ated Animal Feeding Op erati o ns

Addendum

Stephen L. Johnson

Adm i nistra tor

Benjam in H. Grum bles

Assistan t Adm i nistrator, Office of Water

Mary T. Smith

Director, Engineering and Analysis Division

Janet Goodwin

Chief, Technology and Statistics Support Branch

Paul H. Shriner

Project Manager

Engineering and Analysis Division

Office of Science and Technology

U.S. Environm ental Protection Agency

Washington, D.C. 20460

June 2006

# ACKNOWLEDGMENTS AND DISCLAIMER

This report has been reviewed and approved fo r publication by the Engi neering and Analysis

Division, Office of Science and Technology. This report was prepared with the support of

Eastern Research Group, Inc. and Tetra Tech, Inc ., under the direction and review of the Office

of Science and Technology. Neither the United S t ates governm e nt nor any of its em ployees,

contractors, subcontractors, or other employees makes any warra nty, expressed or im plied, or

assum e s any legal liability or responsibility for any third party’s use of, or the results of such use

of, any inform ation, apparatus, product, or process discussed in this report, or represents that its

use by such a third party would not infringe on privately owned rights.

i

### Developme n t Document for the F i nal Revis i o n s to the

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Regulation

and the Effluent Guidelines for

Concentrated Animal Feeding Op erations

Version Control

Version EPA Public ation

Number Publication

Date Description of Changes Author’s

Initia l

1 EPA-821-R-03-001 Decem ber 2002 Initial Release PHS

2 EPA-821-R-06-007 June 2006 Updated Introduction and

Table of Contents; new

subsections to Chapters

2, 8, and 15; new

Appendices PHS

This document is an addendum to the Developm ent Document for th e Final Revis i on s to the

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Syst em Regulation and the Ef fluent Guidelines for

Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (EPA-821-R-03-001), which was prepared in support

of effluent lim itations guidelin es and standards for Concentrat ed Anim al Feeding Operations

(CAFOs), published February 12, 2003 (68 FR 7176)

. Please note that the section and page

num b ers in this docum ent are num bered to be consis tent with the original docum e nt. The section

num b ers either correspo nd to section num b ers in the existing docum ent, or are additions to the

original docum ent. The page num be rs conti nue from the existing pages in the original

docum ent.

ii

# C ONTENTS

C HAPTER 

### 1 I NTRODU CTION



### ..................................................................................................... 1-7

C HAPTER 

### 2 S UMMA RY A N D 

### S COPE O F 

### P ROPOSED 

### R EGULATIO N



### ............................................ 2-17

2.3 Summ ary of the Second Circuit Court Decision Concerning R e m a nded

Issues

...................................................................................................... 2-17

2.3.1 Proposed Regulation of NSPS

................................................... 2-17

2.3.1.1 100-Year Storm Contai nm ent Structure

........................ 2-18

2.3.1.2 Superior Alternative Perfor m ance Standards

................. 2-18

2.3.2 Proposed Regulation of BCT for Pathogen Control

.................. 2-18

2.4 References

.............................................................................................. 2-19

C HAPTER 

### 8 T REATMENT 

### T ECHNOLO G IES AND 

### B EST 

### M ANAGEMENT 

### P RA CT ICE S



### ................. 8-232

8.6 Treatm e nt Technologies and Pract ices Evaluated for Pathogen

Control

................................................................................................. 8-232

8.6.1 Descriptions of Technology Options

....................................... 8-232

8.6.1.1 Anaerobic Digestion

.................................................... 8-233

8.6.1.2 Lim e Addition

.............................................................. 8-234

8.6.1.3 Com posting of Poultry Manure or L itter

..................... 8-234

8.6.1.4 Fluidized Bed Incineration

........................................... 8-235

8.6.1.5 Other Chemical Addition Technologies

...................... 8-236

8.6.1.6 Deep Stacking of Poultry Litter

................................... 8-237

8.6.2 Technology Cost Calculations

................................................. 8-237

8.6.2.1 Anaerobic Digestion for Pa thogen Reduction at Large

Dairy Operations

.......................................................... 8-240

8.6.2.2 Anaerobic Digestion for Pa thogen Reduction at Large

Swine Operations

......................................................... 8-245

8.6.2.3 Lim e Addition to Dairy Manure

.................................. 8-247

8.6.2.4 Com posting of Poultry Manure or L itter

..................... 8-257

8.6.3 Pollutant Load Calculations

..................................................... 8-265

8.6.4 References

................................................................................ 8-267

C HAPTER 

### 15 A DDITIONAL 

### A NALYSES IN 

### R ESPONSE TO THE 

### 2005 S EC OND 

### C IRCUIT 

### C OURT



### D ECISION



### ............................................................................................................ 15-1

15.1 New Source Perform a nc e Standards

...................................................... 15-1

15.1.1 100-Year Storm Contai nm ent Structure

.................................... 15-1

15.2 Best Conventional Pollutan t Control Technology

................................. 15-4

15.2.1 Background of BCT Cos t Test

................................................... 15-5

15.2.1.1 BCT Cost Test Calculation Steps

............................. 15-6

15.2.1.2 Data Sources Used in the BCT Cost Test

Calculations

.................................................................... 15-7

15.2.2 Developm ent of BCT Co st Test for F C

..................................... 15-8

15.2.2.1 Calculation of POTW Benchm ark for FC

................ 15-9

15.2.2.2 Calculation of Industr y Benchm ark for FC

............ 15-12

iii

# C ONTENTS 

# ( CONTINUED 

# )

15.2.3 Results of BCT Cost Test

........................................................ 15-13

15.2.3.1 BCT Cost Test for BOD and TSS Re movals

.......... 15-13

15.2.3.2 BCT Cost Test for FC Rem ovals

............................ 15-16

15.3 References

............................................................................................ 15-19

Appendix A: M ODEL 

### F ARM 

### R ESULTS FOR 

### M ODIFIED 

### O PTION 

### 6 FOR 

### S WI N E



### Appendix B: CAFO P OUL T RY 

### M ODEL 

### F ARM 

### C OM PO STIN G 

### C OS T



### Appendix C: A DDITIONAL 

### P OLLUTANT 

### D ATA



### iv

# L IST OF 

# F IGURES

Figure 8-16. Diagram of a Flush Da iry Lim e Disinfection System

........................................ 8-251

Figure 8-17. Diagram of a Scrape Dairy Lim e Disinfection System

...................................... 8-252

Figure 8-18. Poultry Composti ng System for W e t Layers

..................................................... 8-258

Figure 8-19. Poultry Composting System fo r Dry Layers, Broilers, and Turkeys

................. 8-258

v

# L IST OF 

# T ABLES

Table 1-1. Regulatory Options for CAFOs that EPA Considered for the 2003 Rule

................. 1-8

Table 8-28. Summ ary of Regulat ory Options for CAFOs

...................................................... 8-239

Table 8-29. Ani m al W e ights

................................................................................................... 8 -242

Table 8-30. FarmWare Fl ush Dairy R e sults

........................................................................... 8-243

Table 8-31. FarmWare Sc rape Dairy Results

......................................................................... 8-243

Table 8-32. U.S. Total NASS Larg e Dairy Farm Statistics

.................................................... 8-244

Table 8-33. Weighted Average Farm Ware Capital and O&M Costs

..................................... 8-244

Table 8-34. Total Annualized Model Farm Co sts for Flush and Scrape Operations

.............. 8-244

Table 8-35. Digester Cost per Swine with Generator and Energy Recovery

......................... 8-246

Table 8-36. Digester Cost per Swine without Generator or E n ergy Recovery

....................... 8-247

Table 8-37. Summ ary of Re sults for the Modified Option 6 for Swine

................................. 8-247

Table 8-38. Model Dairy W a ste Genera tion and Precipitation Collection

............................. 8-249

Table 8-39. Lim e Disinfection System Design Param e ters

.................................................... 8-250

Table 8-40. Lim e Storage and Slak ing System De sign Param e ters........................................ 8-253

Table 8-41. Ammonia Scrubber Sy stem Design Param e ters

.................................................. 8-254

Table 8-42. Estim ated Capital Cost for Lim e Disinfection of Dairy W a ste

........................... 8-255

Table 8-43. Estim ated Annual O&M Cost for Lim e Disinfection of Dairy W a ste

................ 8-256

Table 8-44. Estim ated Industry Co st for Lim e Disinfection................................................... 8-257

Table 8-45. Model Farm s and Costs Presente d in the Poultry Co m posting Report

............... 8-259

Table 8-46. Storage Pond Volum e and Costs

......................................................................... 8-261

Table 8-47. Poultry Composting Costs Includi ng Storage P onds and Solids Separation

....... 8-262

Table 8-48. Poultry Industry Costs for Com posting

............................................................... 8-263

Table 8-49. Com post Prices and Data Sources

....................................................................... 8-264

Table 8-50. Sedim e nt Load Reductions from La rge CAFOs in Millions of Pounds

per Year

............................................................................................................ 8-267

Table 8-51. FC Load Re ducti ons from Large CAFOs in 10 19 

### Colony Form ing Units

........... 8-267

Table 8-52. BOD Load Reductions f r om Large CAFOs in Millions of Pounds per Year

..... 8-267

Table 15-1. Case Studies Using AWM and SPAW to De m o nstrate No Discharge

................. 15-4

Table 15-2. Model POTWs and Representati ve Flow Ranges from the 1986 FRN

................. 15-6

Table 15-3. Cost of Secondary Treatm ent

.............................................................................. 15-11

Table 15-4. Cost of Advanced Secondary Treatment

............................................................. 15-11

Table 15-5. Weighting F actors

............................................................................................... 15 -12

Table 15-6. POTW Benchm ark for FC

................................................................................... 15-12

Table 15-7. Flow–weighted Cost of Secondary T r eatm e nt

.................................................... 15-13

Table 15-8. 2003 CAFO Rule BPT Co sts and BOD & TSS Re m ovals

................................. 15-14

Table 15-9. Increm ental Costs and BOD & T SS Re m ovals of Candida te Technologies

....... 15-14

Table 15-10. BOD & TSS Cost Test Part One - P O TW Test Results

.................................... 15-15

Table 15-11. BOD & TSS Cost Test Part Two – Industr y Cost Test Results

........................ 15-16

Table 15-12. 2003 CAFO Rule BPT Costs and FC Re m ovals

............................................... 15-17

Table 15-13. Increm ental Costs and FC Re m oval s of Candidate Technologies

.................... 15-17

Table 15-14. Alternative Cost Test P a rt One - PO TW Test Results

...................................... 15-18

Table 15-15. Alternative Cost Test P a rt Two – Industry Cost Test Results

........................... 15-18

vi

# Chapter 1

I NTRODUCTION

This document is an addendum to the Developm ent Document for th e Final Revis i on s to the

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Syst em Regulation and the Ef fluent Guidelines for

Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (EPA-821-R-03-001), referr ed to as the Technical

Developm ent Docum e nt or TDD, which was pr epared in support of effluent lim itations

guidelines and standards for Concentrated An im al Feeding O p erations (C AFOs), published

February 12, 2003 (68 FR 7176). On February 28, 2005, the Second Circu it Court of Appeal

issued its decision to rem a nd several elem ents of the 2003 CAFO rule related to new sources and

Best Conventional Pollutant Cont rol Technology (BCT) and directed EP A to further review and

clarify these rules. This a ddendum s u mm arizes EPA’s findings.

The final regulations in the 2003 Ef fluent Lim itations Guidelines and Standards include revisions

of two regulations that ensure m a nure, litter, and other pro cess wastewaters for CAFOs do not

im pair water quality. These two regulations ar e the Nationa l Pollutan t Discharge E l im ination

System (NPDES) and the Effluent Lim itations Gu idelines an d Standards (ELGs) for feedlots

(beef, dairy, swine, poultry, and veal), which es tablish the technology-based standards that are

applied to CAFOs. Both regula tions were originally prom ulga ted in the 1970s. EPA revised

these regulations in 2003 to address changes that have occurred in the anim al industry sectors

over the last 25 years, to clarify and improve im plem entation of CAFO pe rm it requirem e nts, and

to im prove the environm ental protection ach ieved under these rules by ensuring effective

m a nage m e nt of m a nure by prim arily the largest C A FOs. EPA did not revise the ELG for the

horse, sheep and lam b, or duck subcategories. In estab lish i ng these r e gulations, EPA evaluated

several different technology opti ons for im ple m e n tation at C A FOs, whic h are summ a r ized in

Table 1-1.

This document presents the m e thodology and calcul ations used to evaluate the court rem a nded

issues of NSPS requirem e nts and BCT standards fo r pathogens. The chapter, section, and page

num b ers of this TDD Addendum ar e designed to fold into and c ontinue from the original TDD

docum ent. Section 2.3 is a continuation of Chapte r 2 in the original TDD, which discusses the

court decision and EPA’s proposed regulation f o r NSPS and BCT. Sec tion 8.6 is a continuation

of Chapter 8 in the original TDD, which discusse s treatm ent technologies that were evaluated for

pathogen control. Chapter 15 is a new chapter th at describes the additional analyses that EPA

conducted in response to the 2005 S econd Circuit Court decision.

1-7

### Table 1-1. Regulatory Options for CAFOs that EPA Cons idered for the 2003 Rule

Opti on

Number Descripti o n

1 Zero d i sch a rg e fro m a facility d e si g n e d

, m a i n tain ed, an d o p erated t o h o l d man u r e, litter, an d o t h e r pro c ess

wastewater, including direct preci p itatio n an d run o f f fr o m a 25- year

, 24 -h our rai n fall ev en t. Th is op ti o n

i n cl ude s i m pl em ent a t i on of fe edl o t best m a nagem e nt pract i ces, i n cl udi ng st orm w at er di v e rsi o ns; l a g o o n

and p o n d de pt h m a rkers; peri odi c i n s p ect i o n s ; ni t r o g e n

- b as ed a g r o nom i c appl i cat i o n rat e s; el im i n at i on o f

manure application within 10 0 feet of a n y surface water, tile drain i n let, or sinkhole; m o rtality handling,

nut ri ent m a nag e m e nt pl an ni n g , a n d reco rd k eepi n g gui del i n es.

1 A Th e sam e ele m en ts as Op tio n 1

, with t h e ad ditio n of st ora g e capacity for the ch ronic storm event (10-ye ar,

1 0 -d ay storm ) ab ov e an y capacity n ecessary to h o l d m a n u r e, litter, and o t h e r pro c ess wastewater,

i n cl udi ng di rec t part i c i p at i o n and r

u no ff f

r o m a 25-y ear, 2 4

- h ou r rai n fal l event

. 2 The sam e ele m ents as Option 1, e x ce pt nitrogen-based agronom ic application rates a r e re placed by

p h o s p horu s -b ased ag ron o m ic ap p lication rat e s wh en d i ctated b y site-sp e cific con d ition s

. 3 A / 3 B Th e sam e ele m en ts as Op tio n 2

, p l us Op tion 3 A f acility co sts in clud e an assessm en t o f the groun d water’s

hydrol ogic link to surface wat e r; Option 3B facility co sts include ground water m onitoring, c onc rete pa ds,

syn t h e tically li n e d lago on s and / or syn t h e tically lin ed storage po nd s.

3 C /3D Th e sam e ele m en ts as Op tio n 2

, p l us p e rm ea b ility stan d a rd s fo r lag oon s and st o r ag e p onds, wh ich m a y

in clu d e costs fo r syn t h e tically lin ed lagoon s and p ond s.

4 The sam e ele m ents as Option 2, plus c o sts for a dditional surface water m onitori ng.

5 Fo r swin e, poultry, and v eal op eration s on ly, th e sam e ele m en ts as Op tio n 2

, bu t is b a sed o n zero

d i sch a r g e w ith n o ov er f l ow und er any circ um stances (i.e., total confinem ent and cove red s t ora g e).

5A For b eef, dai r y

, an d hei f e r op erat i ons o n l y , t h e sam e el em ent s as O p t i o n 2

, pl us i m pl em ent a t i on o f a d r i e r

m a nure m a nagem e nt sy st em (i .e., c o m post i n g)

. 6 Fo r th e Larg e swin e and d a iry op eration s on ly, th e sam e el em ent s as O p t i o n 2, pl u s i m pl em ent a t i on of

anaer o b i c di ge st i on wi t h e n er gy rec o very

. 7 Th e sam e ele m en ts as Op tio n 2

, p l us timin g restrictio n s on l a n d app licatio n of an im a l waste to fro zen,

sno w -co v e r ed , or sat u rat e d gr ou n d

.



### 1-8

# Chapter 2

S UMM A R Y

AND 

# S COPE OF 

# P ROPOSED 

# R EGULA T ION

The proposed regulations described in this docum ent include revisions to the ELGs prom ulgated

for CAFOs on February 12, 2003 (68 FR 7176). Sec tion 2.3.1 describes the proposal related to

NSPS and Section 2.3.2 describes th e proposal related to BCT for the control of pathogens.

2.3 Summary o f the Secon d Circuit Court Decision Concerning Remanded Issues

The Second Circuit Court of Appeals rem a nded seve ral elem ents of the 20 03 CAFO rule related

to new sources. Specifically, the court directed E P A to clarify the basis for allowing subpart D

CAFOs to c o m p ly with the NSPS requirem e nts by either the 100-year storm standard or the

alternative p e rform a nce standard s. W ith respect to the 100 -y ear storm standard, the C ourt noted

that while certain studies show ed that the production area Best Managem e nt Practices (BMPs)

adopted by the 2003 CAFO rule would have substantially prevented the production area

discharg es d o cum e nted in the re cord, the cour t ex plic itly sta t e d that substantially preventing

discharges is not the sam e as prohibiting them outrigh t. W ith r e spec t to the altern a tive

perform a nce standards, the court held that EPA had not justified its decision to allow com p liance

with the no discharg e standard th rou gh an altern ative standard perm itting production area

discharges so long as the aggregate pollution to all m e dia is equivalent to or lower than the

baseline standards. The court further held that E P A did not provide adequate notice f o r either of

these provisions under the CW A’s public participa tion requirem e nts. See 33 U.S.C. § 1251(e)

(“Public participation in the developm ent, revi sion, and enforcem ent of any regulation, standard,

effluent lim itation, plan, or program established by the Adm i nistrato r or any State under this Act

shall be provided for, encouraged, and assi s t ed by the Adm i nistrator and the States”).

The Second Circuit Court of Appeal also re m a nded the 2003 CAFO rule’s BCT standard for

pathogens. In the court’s view, the 2003 CAFO r u le violated the CWA be cause EPA did not

m a ke an affirm ative finding that the BCT-based ELGs adopted in the CA FO rule do in fact

represent the best conventi onal pollutant control technol ogy for reducing pathogens –

specifically, fecal coliform bacter ia (FC). The court noted that EPA m a y well determ ine that the

ELGs otherwise adopted by the CAFO rule do in f act represent the best conventional pollutant

control technology for reducing pathogens. The c ourt further noted that EPA m a y determ ine,

after considering a ll the relevant factors, that the ELG s otherwise adopted by the 2003 CAFO

rule will directly – not just in cidentally – reduce pathogens a nd do so better than any other

pollutant control technology.

2.3.1 Proposed Regulation of NSPS

The CWA requires EPA to prom ulgate NSPS for ne w, as opposed to already existing, sources of

pollution. S e e 33 U.S.C. § 1316. The Act provides that these standards must “reflect the

greatest degree of effluent reduction which the Adm i nistr a tor determ ines to be ach iev a ble

through application of the best available dem onstrated control technology, processes, operating

m e thods, or other alternatives, includ ing, wher e p r acticab le, a standard p e rm itting no discharg e

of pollutants.” 33 U.S.C. § 1316(a)(1). The Ac t further requires that the E P A “take into

2-17

### consideration the cost of achieving such effluent reduction, and any non-water quality,

environm ental im pact and energy requirem ents .” 33 U.S.C. § 1316(b)(1)(B). EPA is given

considerable discretion to weigh and balance the various factors re quired by statute to set NSPS.

Waterr keepe r Allian ce, Inc., et al. v. EPA , 358 F. 3d 174, 195 (2d Cir. 2004).

EPA proposed that the NSPS for the production ar eas of swine, poultry, and veal CAFOs include

a total prohibition on production area discharges. In the Final Rule, however, the EP A changed

course in several respects: (1) The N SPS still ba rred all produ ction area d i scharges, bu t provid e d

that a CAFO could com p ly with this require m e nt by designing, constructing, operating and

m a intaining production areas that could “contain all m a nure, li tter, and process wastew ater

including the runoff and the direct precipitation from a 100-year, 24-hour ra infall event;” and (2)

the NSPS empowered perm itting au thorities to esta blish alternative p e rform a nce standards that

allow production area discharges , so long as such discharg es were accom p anied by “an

equivalent or greater reduction in the quantity of pollutants re leased to other m e dia” by the

CAFO. The court determ ined that there was not adequate support in the record for either of

these decisions. This section discusses EPA’ s analysis for the proposed changes to NSPS.

2.3.1.1 100-Year Storm Containment Structure

EPA proposes to delete 40 CFR 412.46(a)(1), the provision allowing C A FOs to m e et the no

discharge standard through the us e of the 100-year, 24-hour rain even t containm ent structure. By

doing so, the production area re quirem e nts for ne w source swine, poultry, and veal calf

operations sources would be no discharge of m a nur e, litter, and process wastewater. The land

application requirem e nts would rem a in unchanged. EPA recognizes that a depth m a rker can be

an excellent m eans of displaying how m u ch storag e a CAFO has, and whether it is tim e to pum p

down levels in the lagoon. Depth markers are a useful tool to he lp with the m a nage ment of any

f acility.

EPA proposes a com p liance alternative for facilities with open m a nure storag e structures to m e et

the no discharge requirem e nts. Specifically, EPA is proposing a m odeling approach by which

facilities could dem onstrate that their proposed system woul d com p ly wi th the no discharge

requirem e nts. If a facility com p lied with th e specified site-specifi c design, construction,

operation, and m a intenance com ponents of the m odeled m a nure storage st ructure, it would be

deem ed to be in com p liance with the no discharge requirem e nt.

2.3.1.2 Superior Alternative Performance Standards

EPA proposes to delete 40 CF R 412.46(d) and rem ove the vol untary superior perform a nce

standards provision for new swine, poultry, and veal sources. The court ruling states that EPA

cannot establish production area stan dards that substantially prevent discharges as equivalent to

standards that prohibit di scharges outright. In accordance wi th this ruling, EPA is proposing to

withdraw this provision.

2.3.2 Proposed Regulation of BCT for Pathogen Control

EPA evaluated various candidate te chnologies to assess whether they are technologically feasible

for all facilities in a subcat egory and would achieve greate r reductions of FC than the

2-18

### technologies selected as the basis for BPT in the 2003 rule. Specifically, E P A estim ated

pathogen reductions associated w ith technology Options 3, 5, 6 and 7, described in T a ble 1-1 and

discussed in the 2003 docket. Thes e regulatory options were eval uated despite EPA’s previous

determ inations of technical infeasibility, dispr opo r tiona tely h i g h costs, and low af f o rdability

because these options m a y provide m o re redu ctio ns of pathogens than the option selected for the

final 2003 CAFO ELGs. EPA did not consid er Options 1 and 4 because they do not p r ovide any

further conventional pollutant reductions than th e final selected Option 2. EPA also evaluated

additional candidate technologies for pathoge n reductions: fluidized bed incinerators;

com posting for poultry; chem ical addition for disinf ection; and additional storage to com p ly with

national prohibitions of land application to fr ozen, saturated, or snow-covered ground (Option 7)

for the swine industry (Option 7 for the beef and da iry industries was alrea dy presented in 2003).

See Chapter 5 for a description and disc ussion of the evaluated technologies.

EPA conducted the BCT cost-reasonableness test fo r those technology options determ ined to be

feasible. EP A found that none of these candidate technologies would pass either part of the BCT

cost test, no ting the BCT cost test ex plic itly a ddr esses th e co nventiona l p o llutants TS S and BOD.

See Chapter 4 for a description of the BCT cost te st analysis. Therefore, E P A believes that any

com b ination of these technologies developed in to a regulatory option for a subcategory would

also not pass the BCT cost test. For exam ple, suppose technology A is practical for dry poultry

facilities, but is not practical for wet poultry facilities. Technol ogy B is practical for wet poultry

facilities, but is not practical fo r dry poultry facilities. Both technol ogies are necessary to create a

technology basis for the entire poultry category. If both technology A and technology B fail the

BCT cost test, then a technology option deve loped for the poultry category com p rised of

technology A for dry fa cilities and technology B fo r wet facilities would al so fail the BCT cost

test.

EPA also evaluated an alternative ap proach to co nducting the two-part co st tes t th at explicitly

addresses FC. Section 15.2.3 presents the results of applying this alternative cost test to the

candidate BCT technology options considered. None of the candidate technology options pass

the altern ative BCT cost test.

2.4 References

Waterkeeper Alliance, In c. et al. v. EPA , 358 F. 3d 174, 195 (2d Cir. 2004).

Waterkeeper Alliance, In c. et al. v. EPA , 399 F. 3d 486 (2d Cir. 2005).

2-19

# Chapter 8

T REA T M E NT 

# T ECHNOLOGIES AND 

# B EST 

# M ANAGEM ENT 

# P RACTICES

8.6 Treatment Technologies and Practi ces Evaluated for Pathogen Control

This chapter provides a description of additiona l treatm ent technologies and best m a nagem e nt

practices (BMPs) specifically identified by EPA for the reduction of FC and other pathogens.

These technologies, including dige sters, fluidized bed incinera tors, chem ical addition for

disinfection, com posting, and deep stacking of poultry litter, were cons idered by EPA as the

bases for BCT options in addition to the tec hnology options evaluated for the 2003 C A FO rule

(described in Table 1-1 of this docum ent).

Section 8.6. 1 provides a descrip tion of each of the new techn o logies considered. Section 8.6.2

presents the estim ated en gineering co mpliance co sts asso ciated with im plem enting the BCT

regulatory options. More detailed infor m a tion on the cost methodology used for options

identified in the 2003 rule is contained in the Cost Report.

Section 8.6.3 presents an estim ation of the pollu tant load reductions associated with the

im ple m entation of each option. EP A’s assessm ent in co rporated pollutant lo ad ings from feedlots

and m a nure storage structures, representing discharges from AFO production areas. T h ese

discharges generally include runo ff fr om the feedlot or m a nure st orage areas due to precipitation

events, but also include, where actual discharg e d a ta was ava i lable, a lim ited num ber of

discharges attributed to storag e system failures and im proper m a nagem e nt. The loadings also

include edge-of-field pollutant lo adings from cropland where anim al m a nure, litter, and process

wastewater is applied. More detailed inform ation on the loads m e thodology used for options

identified in the 2003 rule is contained in the Pollutant Loading Reductions for the R e vised

Effluen t Lim itations Guideline s for Concentrate d Animal Feeding Opera tions (2002) (i.e.,

“Loads Report”).

8.6.1 Description s of Technology Options

This section provides a description of the ne w technology options EPA considered for BCT as

part of this proposed rule. EPA also evalua ted Options 3, 5, 5A, 6, and 7 for the control of

conventional pollutants. These op tions, identified in the 2003 ru le and described in Table 1-1,

potentially provide pathogen reduction be yond that of the BPT option (O ption 2).

In support of this proposed rule, EP A reevaluate d Option 6 (anaerobic digestion) to f o cus on a

technology basis and design that would optim iz e pathogen removal, specifically m e sophilic

digestion. E P A identified the design basis for this technology, and estim a ted the cost to

im ple m ent the technology, and th e expected load reductions.

EPA also evaluated two new t echnology options not previously considered as BPT candidate

technologies, but considered here because of thei r potential in reducing pa thogens: lime addition

to dairy m a nure, and composting of poultry litter. To be thor ough, EPA e v aluated the costs and

8-232

### load redu ctions associated with thes e techno l ogies, despite E P A’s previous determ inations of

their techn i c a l inf eas ibility, dispropo r tiona tely h i g h costs, and low af f o rdability.

Finally, EP A reviewed several ot her technologies that were de term ined to not be viable

technology options: flu i dized bed in cinerators, chem ical addition for d i sinfection (including

chlorine, calcium hypoc hlorite, sodium hypochlorit e, and ozone), and de ep stacking of poultry

litter. These technologies are described in this se ction, but were not included in the cost or loads

calcu lations because they are not tec hnically feasible for th is industry.

8.6.1.1 Anaerobic Digestion

EPA included a digester option in the BCT cost test for those species where the technology is

most likely to be feasible - Large dairy and sw ine facilities (see the AgSTAR handbook for m o re

inform ation, EPA Docke t OW -2005-0037, DCN 1-01215). S ections 8.6.2.1 and 8.6.2.2 present

the cost calculation m e thodologies used to represent this option. The option includes

construction of a m e sophilic digester (either a heated covered-lagoon di gester, plug flow, or

com p lete m i x digester, with bioga s recovery) prior to m a nure storag e. T r eated m a nure is stored

in the CAFO’s existing m a nure storage facility. Treated m a nure is assum e d to be land applied

consistent w ith the BPT requirem e nts of 40 CFR 412.

There are three basic temperatur e regim e s for anaerobic digesti on: psychrophilic, m e sophilic,

and therm ophilic. Psych r ophilic, or low-tem p erature, diges tio n is a natural decom position

process at temperatures typically found in la goons. The hydraulic retention tim e for stable

operation varies from 30 days to 90 days de pending on tem p e r ature. Mesophilic digestion

reduces the retention period to 12 to 20 days. In som e lim ited cases digesters were shown to

reduce FC by as m u ch a s 99 percent, particular ly by therm ophilic (high e r tem p eratures in the

range of 135 to 155 degrees Fahrenheit) digestion, but regrowth of both FC and other pathogens

was shown to occur during effluent storage. (68 FR 7217) EPA did not receive any p ublic

comments or data during the 2003 rulem a king pr ocess that provided a reliable m eans of

quantifying this regrowth. Most im portantly, a d i gester do es not elim inate the need f o r the

CAFO to ha ve liquid impoundm e nts for process wa stewater, treated wastew ater, and storm water

runoff.

EPA assum e s a m e sophilic (he a ted ) d i gester sys t e m will reduc e FC of the stored m a nure by 99

percent (a 2 log-order reduction). EPA’s digester option costs in clud e co st-offsets du e to biogas

recovery and energy recovery, and a new storage pond for effluent storage if the CAFO did not

alre ady utilize liqu i d sto r age struc t ur es. The reso urces f o r a m e sophilic digester des i gned to

target pathogen reduction are expected to be high er than a digester d e sig n ed to stabilize m a nure

and produce biogas. In particular, CAFO operato rs are highly unlikely to have the experience

and technical expertise for start-up, troubleshoo ting, and routine diagnostics to ensure the

digester is operating as inte nded. Th erefore EPA’s costs al so include ann u al technical

consultation and services necessary to assure e ffective digester system operation, optim al biogas

generation, and energy recovery. The total increm ental costs and pollutant reductions of this

option are presented in T a bles 15-8 and 15-12.

Digesters do not reduce the tota l nutrients in animal wastes. Most of the phosphorus rem oved

from the effl uent is concentrated in the diges t ed solids, which are still su bject to land applic ation

8-233

### requirem e nts. Other data show that changes in pollutant com position, particularly the soluble

for m s of nitrogen, could result in increased discharges of pollutants fo llowing land application of

digested m a nure, specifically a mmonia releas es and ot her em issions. Sim ilarly, m e t a ls are not

reduced and rem a in in the digester ef fluent and solids.

Digestion m a y also be conducted ae robically, but this variation is rarely seen at CAFOs due to

process problem s , design challenges, high ener gy requirem e nts, and disproportionately high

costs (See Table 8-14 of the TDD for a list of aer obic digestion and activated sludge processes).

8.6.1.2 Lime Addition

Lim e addition m a y be used as a disinfectant fo r barn and m ilking parlors and other anim al

wastes. Lim e addition is a proven treatm en t technology for Class A and Class B biosolids

standards. To m eet Class B re quirem e nts using lim e stabilization, the pH of the biosolids m u st

be elevated to m o re than 12 for 2 hours and subs equently m a intained at more than 11.5 for 22

hours. The m a terial also needs to be kept at high tem p erature (70 Ce lsius) for at least 30

m i nutes, which would require outside heating of the m a te rial to be treated.

Section 8.6.2.3 presents a cost estim ate for lim e tr eatm ent of dairy m a nure. Data presented in

Section 8.6.2.3 dem onst r ate that the capital costs for holding tanks, dosage tanks, m i xing

equipm ent, and neutralization tanks necessary fo r retrofitting this tec hnology at CAFOs are high.

The addition of lim e results in an increas e in sludge volum e, although lime st abilization

generally requires less space than treatm ent a lternatives such as com posting. Most highmoisture C A FO wastes would require som e so rt of digestion and/or dew a tering prior to

stabilization. EPA believes additional costs fo r operator training, safety controls, chem ical

purchases, and increased volum e of m a terials th at m u st be hauled and land applied m a y be

another reason the technology has not been adop ted by CAFOs given the successful application

of lim e addition to biosolids. The addition of li me to organic wastes in general has been shown

to accelerate ammonia em issions.

8.6.1.3 Composting of Poultry Manure or Litter

Com posting is used at anim al feeding operations to biolog ica lly stabili ze and dry waste for use

as a fertilizer or soil am endm ent. Composting is an aerobic process in which m i croorganism s

decom pose organic m a tter into h eat, water, carbon dioxide, and a m o re stable form of organic

m a tter—resulting in a relatively uniform

, dry, od orless end product that can be used as a soil

am endm ent. The elevated tem p erature in the in terior of a properly opera ted com post pile k ills

weed seeds, pathogens, and fly larvae. Because com posting is an aerob ic process, a continuous

supply of oxygen m u st be available f o r the m i croorganism s to break down the organic m a tter.

Com posting tim e and efficiency are affected by the am ount of oxygen, the balance of carbon and

nitrog en in the raw m a teria l s, the m o istur e cont e n t, and the p a rticle si ze and the porosity of the

m a terials. F i ve bas i c ap proaches to com posti ng are (1 ) the p a ssive p ile approach, (2) windrow

com posting using a loader for turning, (3) windrow com posti ng using specialized windrow

turners, (4) aerated static pile sy stem s, and (5) in-vessel system s.

The effectiveness of the technology is weathe r dependent, and for Large CAFOs generating

substantial quantities of m a nure, the tec hnology requires a large am ount of land, requires

8-234

### additional runoff controls and wast ewater sto r ag e, and im poses a m u ch operating hig h er cost on

CAFOs. (TDD, p. 8-102 to 8-110; Cost Report, Section 5.12) Ho wever, windrow com posting is

applicable at a m u ch wider rang e of CAFOs, and was included in technology Option 5A for beef

and dairy operations in the 2003 rule. Com posti ng is also a practical technology for increm ental

pathogen removals at most poultry operations.

EPA evaluated a windrow com posting option for poultry m a nure/litter in the BCT cost test.

Sim ilar to the digesters option, EPA conservativ ely estim a tes that com posting reduces FC by 99

percen t. Costs f o r the po ultr y com p osting option include:

y Planning;

y Com post a m endm ents (including water);

y Land rental for the com p osting area;

y Equipm ent for windrow turn ing (capital and operation & m a intenance) and com post

monitoring ;

y Labor for windrow turning and m oni toring (tem perature and moisture content);

y Solids separation equipm ent for wet layer operations; and

y Storage pond installation and irri gation costs for dry layer, br oiler, and turkey operations.

Section 8.6.2.4 provides a detailed explanati on of the windrow com posting option and

m e thodology used to calculate costs for applyi ng com posting technology to poultry operations.

8.6.1.4 Fluidized B e d Incineration

Fluidized bed incineration is a proven technol ogy for reducing waste volum e and for converting

the waste to useful products (e.g., energy, nutrient enriched ash), a nd is being used at municipal

waste dispos al facilities. However, even at m unicipal operations, incineration can be a costly

m e thod of di sposal and frequently requires co-combustion with other feedstocks.

In addition, incinerators are not widely used in the United States to m a nage anim al m a nure

because it is generally n o t affordable to ind i vidu al CAFOs. Application of this techn o logy has

been attem p ted by a beef feedlot in the U.S., but failed becau se the incinerator therm a l output

could not be sustained (TDD, page 8-93 to 8-95). Fluidized bed inci n e ra tors a r e a l so sensitive to

moisture co ntent and f u el par tic le s i ze, lim iting inciner a tor ef f ectivenes s to those wastes tha t

have a m o re consistent com position and cont ain no m o re than 15-20 percent m o isture.

EPA has not been able to identify cattle or sw ine CAFOs that have succe s s f u lly im plem ented the

technology. Individual poultry CA FOs in the U.S. do not currently use incineration as a m e thod

of handling excess poultry litter, alth ough centralized in cinerator pr o j ects have been successfully

developed in the European Union in selected geographic areas with a high density of poultry

operations, and several sim ilar system s have b een proposed in the U.S. These centralized

8-235

### incine rato rs reduce pa th ogens in th e litter. Howe ver, large-scale, cen tral ized incineration plants

have not yet successfully translated into feasib le , sm aller-sca le units f o r individual CAFO use.

(See Chapter 8 of the TDD.)

It is also pos sible to gas i fy m a nure solids on-farm , but this technology is s t ill in the p i lot stag e.

EPA is aware of a dem o nstration p r o j ect that heats the m a nure in a refractory oven, and where

the gasses are used to rep l ace p r opane in a m o rtal ity handling system

. EPA is not aware of any

individual C A FOs using incinerati on due to fuel costs, the high capital costs of the incineration

unit, and the inability to sustain the technology for m o st anim al m a nure s . EPA therefore rejects

this technology as practical for individual CAFOs.

8.6.1.5 Other Chemical Addition Technologies

Methods of disinfection include chem ical addition, heat, m echanical m e thods, and radiation.

Various types of chem ic al addition f o r the purpose of disinfection were revi ewed but not selected

as part of a technology option in the 2003 CAFO rule. (See Ch apter 8 of the TDD for m o re

inform ation). Commonly used di sinf ection techn o logies in th e U.S. inclu d e the add ition of

chem icals such as chlorine, calcium hypochlor ite, sodium hypochlorite, lim e , and ozone.

Chlorination has a history of select pathogen destruction effectiveness and is relatively

inexpensive when used as a polishing step for fi nal increm ental rem oval of pathogens. However,

organic compounds present in typi cal CAFO was t ewater can com b ine with chlorine to for m

chloroform (a docum ented anim al carcinogen), m onochloram ines, and other toxic chloro-organic

com pounds. Accordingly, the Occupational Sa fety and Health Adm i nistration (OSHA)

established intensive tr aining and safety m easures for chlorine use (EPA Docket OW-2005-0037,

DCN 1-01198). Chlorine dioxide is widely used as an altern ative b actericide, but req u ires

expensive generating equipm ent, and produces chlo rate and chlorite as potentially undesirable

by-products. Che m ical addition is no t comm only pr acticed in the United S t ates for treatm e nt of

anim al wastes. In order for chlorination to be optim a lly effective and to m i nim i ze the generation

of chlorinated by-products , the treated wastewater should have low levels of suspended solidsgenerally 30 to 50 m g /l or less. Therefore, to im plem ent chlorine-b ased disinfection, anim al

wastewater would require prim ar y and/or biological treatm ent prior to disinfection. Storage

tanks, dosage control equipm ent, and m i xing equipm ent would n eed to be retrofitted. The

capital inv e s t m e nt to m o dif y a typica l CAFO ’s existing m a nur e m a nagem e nt system will be

costly and clearly requires higher levels of m a intenan ce and operator skill.

Ozone is a highly effective germ icide against a wide range of pathogeni c organism s, including

bacteria, protozoa, and viruses. Ozone use in U. S. wastewater treatm e nt is lim ited due to high

capital and operating costs and intensive ener gy requirem e nts. Ozonation, like chlorination,

requires a w a stewater th at has relativ ely lo w levels of solids to avoid regrowth of

m i croorganism s a f ter disinfection and reduce ad d e d cost as so ciated with oxidizing oxygen

dem a nding solids. Ozone disinfection technolog y is not com m only practiced in the United

States for treatm ent of anim al wastes. The pr ocesses are costly and require higher levels of

m a intenance and operator skill. Ozone disinf ection efficiency depends on a pH 6-10 and

tem p erature of at least 36 de grees Fahrenheit. (T DD, p. 8-117) To im plem ent this technology,

anim al wastewater would require prim ary and/or biological treatm e nt prio r to disinfection (EPA

Docket OW-2005-0037, DCN 1-01198). Theref ore, EP A rejected ozonation as practical due to

undesirable disinfection by-pr oducts, high operation and m a intenance requirem ents, high

8-236

### operator skill, considerable worker safety con cerns, and overall high costs. For the above

reasons, EP A finds that all of thes e c h em ical addition technologies are not practical for

individual C A FOs.

8.6.1.6 Deep Stacking of Poultry Litter

Deep stacking consists sim p ly of piling litter in a conical pile or stack af te r it is r e m o ved f r om a

poultry house and raising the tem p erature to a m a xim u m of 140 Fahrenheit (60 Celsius) by

m i crobes. As with anaerobic d i ges tion, in cine ration, and in som e cases chem ical addition, the

heat (high temperature) reduces pathogens. A lthough the practice of deep stacking po ultry litter

enhances its potential value as a feedstuff for rum i nants by reducing concern about possible

pathogen transm ission, the poultry litter cannot be c onsidered pathogen free. The stacked litter is

not m i xed out of concern that re-aeration will create the potentia l for excessive heating. Thus,

outer region s of the deep stacked litter do not reach the tem p eratures n eces sary for path ogen

destruction.

In practice, deep stacking m a y be considered a s p ecialized approach to com posting in which

oxygen availability lim its the overall tem p erature and the deg r ee to which dry m a tter (“volatile

solids” or “VS”) are destroyed. (TD D , p. 8-131 to 8-132) Due to the lack of reliable data on the

overall ef f ectivene ss of the techno lo gy in reduc ing FC, the operational si m ilaritie s to windrow

com posting (an option already evaluated; see S ection 8.6.1.3), and lim ited applications to lim ited

types of poultry CAFOs, EPA rejects deep stac king as practical for c onsideration as a BCT

candidate.

8.6.2 Technology Cost Calculations

EPA estim ated industry costs for Options 2, 3, 5, 5A, and 7, based on costs developed for the

2003 CAFO rule using the m e thodology presented in the Cost Report. Estim a tion of these costs

began by identifying the practices an d technologies that could be used to m eet a particular set of

regulatory requirem e nts. The Agency then devel oped a cost model to estim a te costs for their

im ple m entation.

EPA used the following approach to estim at e compliance costs for the C A FOs industry:

EPA collected data from published research, m e e tings with industry organizations, discussions

with USDA cooperative extension ag encies, review of USDA’s Cens us of Agriculture data, and

site visits to swine, poultry, beef , veal, and dairy CAFOs. These da ta were used to def i ne m odel

far m s and to determ ine waste generation and nutr ient concentration, current waste and nutrient

practices, and the viab ility of waste m a nage m e nt technologies for the m o del farm s.

EPA identified candidate waste and nutrient m a nagem e nt practices and grouped appropriate

technologies into regulatory options

. These regulatory options se rve as the bases of com p liance

cost and po llutant loadin g calcu latio n s.

EPA developed technology frequenc y factors to estim ate the per centage of the industry that

already im plem ents certain operations or practi ces required by the regulatory options (i.e.,

baseline conditions).

8-237

### EPA diff erentia ted betw een the t op 25 percent and bottom 25 percen t of perform e rs. This is

identified as “Perform ance Needs” and receives a value of lo w, m e dium , or high (L, M, or H).

This part of the costing m e thodology addresse s the concern that all CAFOs are average

perform e rs and all incur an average cost. This m e thodology, when com b ined with frequency

factors, resu lts in som e CAFOs havi ng little or no costs, som e CAFOs ha ving high or full costs,

and som e CAFOs incurring m oderate costs.

EPA developed cost equations for estim ating cap ita l costs, initia l f i xed co sts, and 3-y e ar

recurring costs, 5-year recurring costs, and a nnu al O&M cos t s for the im plem entation and use of

the different waste and nutrient practices targ eted under the regulatory options. Cost equations

were developed from inform ation collected durin g the site visits, published inform ation, vendor

contacts, and engineering judgm ent.

EPA developed and used com puter cost m odels to estim a te com p liance c o sts and nutr i ent loads

for each reg u lato ry option.

EPA used output from the cost m odel to estim at e total annualized costs and the econom i c i m pact

of each regu lato ry optio n on the CAFOs industr y (presen t ed in the Econ om ic Analysis).

Table 8-28 presents the regulator y options and the waste and nu trient m a nagem e nt components

that m a ke up each optio n.

8-238

### Table 8-28. Summary of Regu latory Options for CAFOs

Technol o gy or Prac tice Opti ons

1 1A 2 3A/

3B 3C/

3D 4 5 5A 6 7(d )

Feed lo t b e st m a n a g e m e n t practices (BMPs), in clud ing

st orm wat e r di versi o n s

, l a go o n / p on d de pt h m a rkers

, • • • • • • • • • •

peri odi c i n sp ec t i ons, an d reco rds

Mo rtality h a ndlin g requ ir em en ts (e.g., ren d e ring

,

com posting ) (a ) • • • • • • • • • •

Nut r i e nt m a nagem e nt pl an ni ng an d rec o r d k eepi n g (sam pl e

soils once e v e r y 3 years

, sam p le m a nure t w ice pe r year) • • • • • • • • • •

Land ap p licatio n li m ited to n i trog en-b ased ag ron o m ic

ap p lication rat e s • •

Land ap p licatio n li m ited to ph o s ph oru s -b ased ag ron o m ic

ap p lication rat e s wh ere d i ctat ed b y site-sp e cific con d ition s

, • • • • • • • •

and nitrogen-based a p plication else whe r e

No m a nure a p plication withi n 100 feet of a n y surface

water, tile d r ai n in let, or sinkh o l e • • • • • • • • • •

Gr ou n d wat e r r e qui rem e nt s, i n cl u d i n g asse s s m e nt of

h ydro l o g i c link, m o n ito ring wells (fo u r p e r facility),

im perm eabl e pads u nde r st ora g e, i m perm eabl e •

l a go on/ po n d l i ners , a n d t e m p ora r y / m odi fi ed st ora g e d u ri ng

upgrade

Gr ou n d wat e r r e qui rem e nt s i n cl udi n g pe rf or

m a nce base d • standa rds for l a goons

Add itio n a l capacity fo r 10 -yea r, 10-day chronic storm •

event

Surface water m onitoring re quir em ent, including four total

gra b sam p l e s u p st ream and d o w nst r eam of b o t h fee d l o t

an d land ap p licatio n areas, 12 tim e s per year. One •

com posite sample collected on ce per year at stockpile and

surface im poundm ents. Samples are analyz ed for nitroge n

, ph os ph o r us , a n d t o t a l s u s p en d e d s o l i d s.

Dri e r m a nure t echn o l o gy basi s ( b ) ( c) • •

Anae r obi c di ge st i on •

Ti m i n g requ iremen ts for lan d ap p lication (resu ltin g in • regi onal vari at i o n i n st ora g e p e ri o d s)

(a) Th ere are no ad d ition a l com p l i an ce co sts exp ected fo r beef an d d a iry op eration s related to m o rtality h a nd ling

requirem ents.

(b ) Opt i o n 5 m a ndat e s “d ri er wast e m a nage m e nt .” Fo r bee f fee d l o t s an d dai r i e s, t h i s t e c h n o l o gy basi s i s com post i n g.

Fo r sw in e, poultr y an d v eal op er ation s , dr ier syste m s in clud e co v e r e d lago on s.

(c) O p t i o n 5 A m a ndat e s “ n o ove rfl ow” sy st em s. Fo r s w i n e o p erat i o ns, t h e t echn o l o gy ba si s i s hi gh -ri se ho usi n g f o r

ho gs, a n d f

o r

p oul t r y o p erat i o ns t h e t ech n o l o gy ba si s i s dry sy st em s.

(d) EPA m o d i fied th e co st esti m a t i o n s for Op tio n 7 costs to 12 m o n t h sto r ag e for n o rth e rn facilities



### EPA additio nally estim ated indus try costs for li me disinfectio n at Large d a iry operatio n s,

anaerobic digestion optim i zed fo r pa thogen reduction at Large sw ine and dairy operations (i.e.

recalculated Option 6), and wi ndrow com posting at Large poultr y operations (Option 5A for

poultry )

. Section 8.6.2 d e scrib e s th e cost estim ating m e thodology EPA us ed for each of these

technology options.

8-239

### 8.6.2.1 Anaerobic Digestion for Pathogen Reduction at Large Dairy Operation s

EPA investigated th e technical applicability, co st s, and FC reductions asso ciated with anaerob ic

digestion with a focus on pathoge n reduction at Large dairy operati ons. Som e anaerobic digester

system s are capable of treating CAFO wastes at el evated tem p eratu r es, resu lting in a decrea se in

pathogenic m i croorganism numbers, while converti ng the volatile solids into reusable energy.

Section 8.6.2.1 provides a descript ion of two m o del dairy CAFOs with different m a nure rem oval

m e thods (flush and scrape) and the associated wast es (m anure, wash water, flush water, runoff,

etc) used to size and cost an anaerobic digester system , the cost calculatio n m e thodology and

total costs to the industry, and FC lo ads associated with this technology.

Model Farms

EPA developed two m o del farm s to represent Large dairy operations in the United States: a flush

dairy and a scrape dairy. Scrape and flush dairies were previously costed for anaerobic digestion

for the final CAFO regulation as described in EPA’s Cost Report. EPA’s previous costing

efforts assu m e d that flush dairies us e a cove red lagoon system following a settling b a sin, and

scrape dairies use a complete m i x digester following a settling basin. However, these

assum p tions were based on the optimal influen t s o lids con t en t of each dig e st er rather than their

pathogen reduction capability. A covered lagoon system is not heated and is therefore not

considered a technology that adequately reduces pathogen levels. The complete m i x and plug

flow digester system s are heated and are bes t suited for patho g en reductio n. To accou n t for

pathogen reduction, EP A assum e d t h at flush dairie s use a complete m i x digester and scrape

dairies use a plug flow digester.

For costing purposes, the representative location us ed for the Large dairy far m s is Tulare County,

California. The costs of digester system s for scra pe and flush dairies were calculated for a range

of far m s containing 850, 1500 and 2500 dairy cows. E ach farm is assumed to have both calves

and heifers. Based on data and assumptions previously presented in the Cost Report:

y The num ber of calves and heifers on site was assum e d to equal 60 percent of the dairy

cows, with each anim al acc ounting for 30 percent;

y The dairy cows spend 4 hours in the m ilking pa rlor and 20 hours in the free stall barn;

and

y The heifers and calves s p end the en tire tim e in a dry lot.

Cost Methodology

During the developm ent of the CAFOs effluent guidelines, several regulatory options were

considered. Regulatory Option 6 stated that “for Large swine and dairy operations only, the

sam e ele m ents as Option 2, plus im plem entation of anaerobic digestion with energy recovery”

should be ev aluated. Therefore, Option 6 costs w ill b e evalu a ted as the co st of the dig e ster

system s plus the costs to im ple m ent Option 2. The cost of implem e ntation of anaerobic

digestion without energy recovery will also be evaluated for com p arison. There is no concern of

8-240

### double counting lagoon costs because lagoons costs ar e not included in O p tion 2 costs for Large

Dairy farm s as described in the Cost Report.

To estim ate the total industry cost of dair y anaerobic digestion, EPA perfor m e d the following

steps:

1. EPA estim ated the anaerobic digestion cost s for scrape and flush dairies with 850, 1500,

and 2500 head using FarmWare Version 2. This is the sam e version of FarmWare that

was used for EPA’s previous costing effort s. The anaerobic digestion costs were

estim ated for two different scenarios: with en ergy recovery and wit hout energy recovery.

The costs w e re estim ated on an annual basis.

2. Operation and m a intenance costs were esti m a ted for anaerobic digestion for both scrape

and flush dairies by calculating a weighted av erage of the different size operations.

3. The weighted average FarmWare costs were then annualized.

4. EPA then added the annualized anaerobic digestion costs to the Option 2 annualized

costs, which were calculated during th e orig inal r u le deve lop m ent.

The following sections describe th e steps taken by EPA to calculate the total cost to industry for

the im plem e n tation of anaerobic digester system s for Large dairy operations with and without

energy recovery under regulatory Option 6.

FarmWare

EPA input data into FarmWare Version 2 to m o del three different sizes of scrape and flush

dairies. The FarmWare program wa s devel oped by the AgSTAR Progra m (www.epa.gov/agstar)

as a screening-level m o del to support decision m a king on whether a m e thane recovery facility

could be integrated into an ex isting facility. FarmWare Vers ion 2 is available publicly at:

http://www.epa.gov/agstar/resources/handbook.htm l (and is also in EPA Docket OW -2 005-0037,

DCN 1-01203). The following list is a screen-by-sc reen summary of the i nputs used to calculate

the cap ital costs of anaerobic di gestion using FarmWare.

Site Location and Climate: FarmW a re contains a database of the average monthly temperatu r e

and rainfall for every county in the US. Tula re County, California was selected from this

database. This region of the country represents m o re large dairies than any other region in the

country. The actual farm level costs m a y be lower or higher depending on average tem p erature

and rainf a ll, but this appr oach is inten d ed to prov ide an aver ag e nation a l co st, not a f a c i lity

specific co st.

Farm Design: All f a rms were assu m e d to be f r eesta ll da ir y far m s. This assum p tion is consistent

with the data presented in the Cost R e port for Large CAFOs, as opposed to the farm design for

AFOs or s m all farm s. The m a nure collection m e thod pick list was used to specify whether the

far m was a flush or scrape barn. To specify a flush barn the “Flush Everything” option was

selected and to specify a scrape b a rn the “Flush Parlor and Scrape Rest” option was selected. In

order to select a dig e ster syst em , the m a nure treatm e nt/storag e system m u st be spec ified as

8-241

### “Methane Recovery Lagoon.” A settling basin was specified for both complete m i x and plug

flow digester system s.

Livesto ck: Table 8-29lists the default anim al we ight s used to calcu late th e m a nure and volatile

solids (VS).

Table 8-29. Animal Weights

Anima l Ty pe Anima l Weight (lbs)

Lact at i ng C o w s 1, 35 0

Hei f er s 55 0

C a l f 35 0



### Facilitie s: The am ount of tim e each anim al type spends in each housing type as d i scussed earlier

was applied in this Fa rmW a re screen

.

Manure Management Train: For the flush dairy, process water is us ed for the parlo r and the free

stall barn. T h e am ount of water used in each facility was calculated u s ing the followin g

equations and values from the Cost Report:

Par l or W a stewater (g al/d ay) = 47 7.5 g a l/d ay + (3 0 g a l/cow -d ay × Nu m b er o f D a ir y Cat tle)

Barn Wastewater (g al/d ay) = 1 0 0 g a l/d ay-cow × Nu m b er of Dairy Cattle



### The calcu lated wastewater valu es were inpu t in to the m odel and a flush frequency of two was

specified. A flush frequency of 2.5 was establ ished as representative of the industry but

FarmWare only recognizes whol e numbers (EPA, 2002). This m a y result in underestim ating the

facility design (size), and m a y th erefore understate capita l costs. As the drylot is scraped, a

m echanical scraper was specified for the m a nure collection.

For the scrape dairy, process water is only used for the parlor. The am ount of water used to flush

the parlor w a s calculated using the f o llowing equation:

Parlor Wastewater (g al/d ay) = 47 7.5 g a l/d ay + (0 .6 25 g a l/co w -d ay × Num b er o f Dairy Cattle)



### The sam e fl ush frequency of 2 was specified fo r scrape b a rn s. A m echanical separator was

selected for the free s t a ll barn and the drylot.

Both farm s r e quired an electric generator to r ecover the energy from the biogas produced. The

unit was assum e d to be running 90 percent of the tim e. This is the default value in FarmWare.

EPA included additional O&M costs for a consultant who assists in m a intaining the system at

optim al levels throughout the system ’s life.

Energy Usage and Payments : To calculate the cost of el ectricity recovered each m onth, the

national average unit price for el ectricity of 7.4 cents per kilo watt hour (kWh) and 90 cents per

gallon of propane were used (USDOE, 1998). Th e m a xi m u m fraction of propane expenses that

could be offset was assum e d to be 90, which is the m odel default.

8-242

### Anaerobic Digestion C o sts for Large Dairy Operations

Tables 8-30 and 8-31 present the output of the Fa rmWare m o del for the flush and scrape m odel

dair ies us ing the inpu ts d e scrib e d abo v e.

Table 8-30. FarmWare Flush Dairy Results

Dair y Cal f Heifer Ca pital C o st Ann u al Ener g y Bene fit

85 0 25 5 25 5 $7 4 6

, 5 8 5 $5 0, 9 10

1, 50 0 45 0 45 0 $1 ,2 0 4

, 8 5 2 $8 7, 7 80

2, 50 0 75 0 75 0 $1 ,8 9 6

, 0 2 1 $1 4 4

, 1 7 8



### Table 8-31. FarmWare Scrape Dairy Results

Dair y Cal f Heifer Ca pital C o st Ann u al Ener g y

Benefit

85 0 25 5 25 5 $3 2 3

, 4 9 5 $5 3, 0 72

1, 50 0 45 0 45 0 $4 8 5

, 4 3 5 $8 9, 9 39

2, 50 0 75 0 75 0 $7 2 8

, 2 6 9 $1 4 6

, 6 5 7



### Weighted Average of FarmWare Output

In order to calculate one cost for Large scrape dairies and one cost for Large flush dairies, EPA

calculated a weighted average of the costs with and without the energy benefits calculated in

FarmW a re. First, EPA e s tim ated total oper a ting and m a intenance cos t s. FarmWare calculates

an annual O & M cost for operating the generator but not m a intaining the digester system as a

whole. Based on a m e morandum from the CAFO docket (EPA Docket OW -2002-0037, DCN

00815), EPA assum e d t h at the annual cost would e qual 10 percent of the total capital cost. To

account for the need for the farm oper a tor to obtain on-going consulting su pport to op erate the

digester sys t em at optimal lev e ls, a s p ecial m a intenance cos t for techni cal consulting was added

to the annu al O&M cost. A 60-dollar per hour c onsulting fee was assess ed for 6 hours per m onth

(EPA Docket OW -2005-0037, DCN 1-02002). T h ese operating and m a intenance costs we used

to calculate the total annual O&M costs with and without ener gy recovery using the following

equation s :

Annu al O&M co sts ($ /yr) with En erg y Recov e ry = Op erati n g Co sts + Con s u lting Fees – En erg y Ben e fi t

Annu al O&M co sts ($ /yr) with ou t En erg y R eco v e ry = Op eratin g Co sts + Co n s u ltin g Fees



### To calculate one set of costs for Large scrape dair ies and one set of costs f o r Large flush dairies,

EPA used statis tic s f r om the United States Departm e nt of Agriculture (U SDA) National

Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) to calculate weighted av erage farm sizes and counts.

These data are listed in T a ble 8-32.

8-243

### Table 8-32. U.S. Total NASS Large Dairy Farm Statistics

Farm Siz e (# of he ad) Represe n tati ve Siz e Number of Farms Percent of F a rms

70 0

- 9 9 9 85 0 1, 02 0 48 %

10 0 0

- 1 99 9 1, 50 0 77 0 36 %

20 0 0 + 2, 50 0 32 5 15 %

T o t a l 2, 11 5 10 0 %



### By applying the percentage of repres entative farm s to the costs ca lculated in FarmWare, th e

weighted av erage capital and O&M costs for flus h and scrape dairy operations for the entire

Large dairy catego r y were calcul ated, as shown in Table 8-33.

Table 8-33. Weighted Average FarmWare C a pital and O&M Costs

Farm T y pe Capital Ann u al O& M w i th

Energy Recovery Ann u al O& M w i thou t

Energy Recovery

Fl ush $ 1, 09 0, 0 52 $ 36 ,4 2 4 $ 11 1, 0 89

Scra pe $ 44 4, 6 51 $ (3 4, 3 2 6 ) $ 46 ,5 4 9



### Annualized Anaerobic Digestion C o sts

W ith the capital costs calculated in F a rmW a re an d the O&M costs estim ated as described above,

the net present value (NPV) of the proposed project was calculated. The NPV was then used to

calcu late the total annualized cost of each m odel far m

. The annualized co sts for flush and

scrape m odel farm s are summ arized in Table 8- 34. The annualized cost s were calculated based

on the sam e annualization m odel used in the 200 2 rule, which is docum ented in Section 2.2.4 of

the Economic Analysis of the Final R evisions to the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination

System Regu lation and th e Efflu ent G u idelines fo r Concentrated Animal Feeding Oper ations

(EPA-821-R-03-002). Th e m odel uses a real dis c oun t/in terest rate of 7 percent, as reco mmended

by the Office of Managem e nt and Budget (OMB, 1992) , which does not have to be adjusted for

inflation. T h e life expectancy of the asset dep e nd s on the serv iceab le life of the structure as well

as on the depreciable life, which a ffects what po rtion of a capital co st can be used each year to

reduce taxable incom e

. The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) rules govern the designation of

depreciable life, which is assigned o n the bas i s o f serviceab le life. Most of the types of capital

investm e nts required under these regulations are typically dep r eciat ed over 10 years (IRS,

1999c). The cost annualization m odel thus inco rporates a 10-year annualization period to

com pute annual costs.

Table 8-34. Total Annualiz ed Mo del Farm Costs for F l ush and Scrape Operations

Farm Annualiz ed Cost w/ Energy

Recover y A n nua lized Co st w/o Energy

Recover y

Fl ush $ 27 1, 1 54 $ 34 5, 4 18

Scra pe $ 51 ,3 2 9 $ 10 2, 6 24



### 8-244

### Industry Total Costs

To obtain industry costs for Option 6, the annualized anaerobic digestion costs were added to the

model farm costs for Option 2. (Option 2 costs totaled $128 m illion, as p r esented in Table 15-7. )

The resultin g m odel farm s costs were m u ltiplie d by the nu mber of facilities repre s e n ted by each

model farm and summ ed to obtain a total cost for Option 6 for the entire industry. EP A

estim ates that the total industr y cost for the im plem entation of anaerobic digester system s at

Large Dairy far m s under Regulatory Option 6 wi ll be $511 m illion with en ergy recovery and

$619 m illio n without en ergy recovery.

8.6.2.2 Anaerobic Digestion for Pathogen Reduction at Large Swine Operations

EPA calculated an anaerobic digester option fo r swine assuming no (zero) energy recovery or

sales to represent a po tential upper bound cost of this opt ion. This scenario assum e s the

insta lla tion of a f l are ins t ead of the g e nera tor and therefore no energy reco very. (EPA Docket

OW -2005-0037, DCN 1-02001)

EPA used FarmW a re v.2 to calculate anaerob ic digestion costs for m ode l farm Large swine

operations from the 2003 final CAFO rule (68 FR 7243). These m odel far m s were run in

FarmW a re with the f o llowing assumptions and m odifications:

y Used Sa m p son County, North Carolina as the representative MidAtlantic far m , Blue

Earth, Minnesota as the Midwest farm, and Beaver County, Utah as the Central farm

.

y Assum e d “flush everything” as the exis ting m a nure m a nagem e nt system for liquid

m a nure and evaporative ponds and “Pu ll Plug or Cascade Dam ” for pit.

y Reduced flush water to twice per day ( 33 percent reduction in flush water use)

y Precip itation is diverted away from the dige ster, no runoff fr om lot areas is generated,

and direct precipitation into the open (unc overed) effluent storage lagoon is captured

y Used m odel default of $.06 per kW h (1999 U.S. average of 4.5 cents industrial use, 7.43

cents commercial, and 8.27 cents residential)

y Engineering costs of $25 thousand (F armW are model default) was used for grow-finish

facilities. E ngineering costs for farrow-t o-finish operations were increased to $40

thousand to account for the increased com p lexity of the site th at could affect digester

construc tion and design (such as m u ltiple conf ine m ent buildings, dif f e rent building

designs for each stage of anim al, diffe rent waste generation rates and m a nure

com position at each site)

y Deep pit housing system s do not have a stor age lagoon, so additional capital costs on the

order of $30-50 thousand are incurred to constr uct an effluent holdi ng structure, for an

additional estim ated $4,500 annual expense

y Digester Cover Material: High Durability wa s selected in the FarmWare pulldown menu

8-245

### y Generator cost was oversized by 10 KW , fo r an additional cost of $10,500 per CAFO

(Farm w are cost of generator is $1,050/KW ) (See Cost report for the basis for this design)

y Capital costs include a contingenc y f actor of 5 percent to reflec t site specific variations of

the assum e d digester design described above

See Table 5.13.3-1 of the Cost Report for additiona l inform ation. The results are presented in

Table 8-35.

Table 8-35. Digester C o st per Sw ine w i th Generator and Energy Recovery

Manure T y pe Operation Type Regi on To ta l Co st

($ per hea d ) Ann u al C o st

($ per hea d )

Pi t GF M A 47 .9 9 (4 .8 1)

Pi t GF M W 55 .1 0 (4 .2 1)

Pi t FF M A 47 .7 9 (1 .6 1)

Pi t FF M W 53 .3 6 (1 .7 0)

Li qui d GF M A 41 .0 4 (4 .7 7)

Li qui d GF M W 51 .7 7 (4 .2 0)

Li qui d FF M A 40 .3 0 (1 .6 2)

Li qui d FF M W 48 .6 3 (1 .7 1)

Eva p o r at i v e GF C E 40 .2 0 (4 .4 7)

Eva p o r at i v e FF C E 39 .1 8 (2 .0 0)



### These results were re-evaluat ed assum i ng no ene r gy recovery and including a flare ($2,500 per

CAFO; see Cost Report) instead of a generator. The results of this analy s is are pres ented in

Table 8-36. Costs include the com p liance costs from Option 2 for land application,

recordkeeping, reporting, and othe r costs incurred as a result of the 2003 rule. Cost of fsets for

energy recovery can be readily determ ined by co mparing the costs presented in Tables 8-35 and

8-36.

8-246

### Table 8-36. Digester C o st per Sw ine w i thout Generator or Energy Recovery

Manure T y pe Operation Type Regi on To ta l Co st

($ per hea d ) Ann u al C o st

($ per hea d )

Pi t GF M A 31 .2 8 1. 71

Pi t GF M W 38 .6 4 1. 50

Pi t FF M A 33 .3 8 1. 36

Pi t FF M W 39 .1 3 1. 21

Li qui d GF M A 24 .4 2 1. 69

Li qui d GF M W 35 .3 4 1. 50

Li qui d FF M A 25 .9 5 1. 35

Li qui d FF M W 34 .4 2 1. 21

Eva p o r at i v e GF C E 24 .5 3 1. 19

Eva p o r at i v e FF C E 25 .6 9 0. 90



### The next step was to estim ate the total cost under Option 6 for the new scenario (no energy

recove ry an d a f l are) by multiply ing model f a rm costs by th e num b er of farm s. Table 8-37

shows a summ ary of the results and Appendix A ha s the de ta iled m odel f a rm results. These costs

include consultation fees for dairies (as described in EPA Doc k et OW -2005-0037, DCN 1­

01128).

Table 8-37. Summary of Results for the Modified Option 6 for Sw ine

Animal Ty pe

Manure

Ty pe Operation

Ty pe Ca pital Ann u al Fixed 3- Ye ar

Recurring 5- Ye ar Recur r i n g

C h i c Li qui d L W $ 1 3

, 97 3,304 $ 1 ,463 ,4 89 $ 138 ,6 25 $2 1, 7 2 9 $9 0, 5 2 9

Ch ic So lid BR $ 8 4

, 02 1,646 $ 3 ,406 ,7 73 $ 1 ,864 ,4 29 $7 1, 0 7 4 $ 958 ,7 13

Ch ic So lid LA $ 3 2

, 32 0,857 $ 1 ,896 ,6 68 $ 324 ,2 97 $4 6, 2 0 2 $ 219 ,6 60

Sw in e Ev ap or FF $ 3 1

, 88 3,745 $ 1 ,801 ,6 89 $ 128 ,4 81 $ 8 ,947 $ 7 9

, 29 1

Sw in e Ev ap or G F $ 3 1

, 24 1,133 $ 2 ,215 ,6 33 $ 131 ,8 48 $ 9 ,180 $ 8 1

, 33 9

Sw in e Liq u i d FF $ 213 ,6 81 ,59 3 $ 1 4

, 00 2,802 $ 821 ,7 38 $ 7 2

, 01 0 $ 6 ,479 ,1 57

Sw in e Liq u i d G F $ 159 ,4 59 ,23 0 $ 1 2

, 42 1,397 $ 605 ,4 26 $ 5 4

, 10 6 $ 5 ,023 ,5 42

Sw in e Pit FF $ 206 ,3 21 ,20 8 $ 2 3

, 08 5,413 $ 829 ,8 28 $ 6 6

, 53 2 $ 552 ,4 18

Sw in e Pit G F $ 270 ,5 68 ,97 4 $ 3 4

, 88 6,081 $ 1 ,091 ,7 86 $ 8 8

, 52 4 $ 724 ,8 30

Turk Solid SL $ 3 0

, 56 9,896 $ 2 ,767 ,7 51 $ 783 ,7 24 $3 3, 5 3 9 $ 556 ,4 94

No te: Valu es in th e h i g h l i g h t ed cells were fo rced t o b e th e sam e as Op tion 2

.



### 8.6.2.3 Lime Addition to Dairy Manure

Lim e treatment increases both the pH and tem p e r at ure of CAFO wastes, resulting in a decrease

in pathogenic m i croorganism num b e r s, while conve rting a portion of the soluble phosphorous in

8-247

### the waste stream to an insoluble calcium phos phate. Section 8.6.2.3 provi des a description of

two m odel dairy CAFOs with different m a nure re moval m e thods (flush a nd scrape). These two

models have different volum e s of wa stes (m anure, wash water, flush water, runoff, etc) that are

used to size and cost a lim e di sinfection system

. For each m o del farm , this section pro v ides a

descrip tion of the neces sary lim e treatm e nt system equipm ent, and the co sts for each of the m a jor

lim e disinfection system com ponents.

Model Dair y CAFO Descript ion

EPA developed two m o del farm s to represent Large dairy operations in the United States: a flush

dairy and a scrape dairy. The Large dairy lim e disinfection m odels are assum e d to be in the

Midwest, since this region receives an average amount of rainfall as com p ared to other regions of

the United S t ates. Using an area of the country with average rainfall allows for a moderately

sized reactio n tank becau se the tank is sized to a llow for m a nure and runof f from rainfa ll. Also,

the soils in the Midwest area hav e ty pical curve num b ers. This m eans that the soils h a ve an

average runoff potential which also allows for a moderately sized reaction tank.

EPA’s Large Dairy m o del farm has 1,430 m ilk cows assum e d to be housed in three free-stall

barns. The model dairies are as sum e d to have a hospital barn, a m ilking parlor, and an earthen

dry lot for heifers and calves. For one m odel da iry, EPA assum e d the free-stall barn alleys are

flushed three tim es per day. For another m odel da iry, EPA assum e d the free-stall barn and alleys

are scraped three tim e s per day. Sawdust is used for bedding in the barns. Feed is brought into

the barns and spread along a cente r drive-through alley. For m ilking, the herd is m oved from the

barn or dry lot into a covered hold i ng area where they are was h e d, then into the m ilking parlor,

and back out into th e barn or lot three tim es each day.

For the dairy with a flush system , EPA estim ated wa stewater is generated at a rate of 130 gallons

per day per cow1. EPA assum e d that all flush wate r from t h e free-st a ll ba rns, parlor, and staging

areas is dis c harged to a liqui d lim e treatm e nt system

.

For the scrape system , only wash water from the pa rlor is d i s c harged to the liqu i d lim e tre a tm ent

system

. EPA estim ated wastewater generation in the parlor to be 0.96 gallons per day per cow.

Only 15 percent of the total daily m a nure generati on from the scraped dairy enters the liquid lim e

system

. The rem a inder of m a nure is collect ed and stockpiled during scraping. Stockpiled

m a nure is treated throug h a pug-m ill with solid lim e

.

EPA also assum e d that runoff from t h e dry lots and free-stall barn areas for both the flush dairy

and scrape dairy enter the liqui d lim e treatm ent system for disinfection. To estim ate the am ount

of

runof f that will b e tr ea ted by the liquid lim e tre a tm ent syste m at both th e f l ush and s c rape

dairies, EPA used data cont ained in Table 4.7.3-2 of the CA FO Cost Re port. Table 4.7.3-2

includes runoff a m ounts by m odel farm and by regi on. According to this table, the runoff

volum e from a Large Midwest dairy from a 25 -year, 24-hour storm event is 111,004 ft3 (830,300

gallons). Therefore, the lim e treatm e nt sy stem s must be sized to handle 830,300 gallons of

runoff per day, plus m a nure, flush water (flush sy stem ), parlor water, and any wash waters.

8-248

### Table 8-38 s hows the number of head selected for each m odel dairy, estim ated m a nure and

nutrient gen e ration, and the es tim ated am ount of r unoff that will be captured and treated by th e

lim e disinfection system

.

Table 8-38. Model Dairy Waste Genera tion a nd Precipitation Collection

Mo del D a iry CAF O Desig n Flush S y s t em Scrape Syste m

Lact at i ng dai r y co ws (a) 1, 43 0 1, 43 0

Hei f er s (a ) 42 9 42 9

C a l v es (a ) 42 9 42 9

Dai r y c o w m a nu re ge nerat i o n (l bs/ d ay a s e x cret e d ) 16 1, 2 00 16 1, 2 00

Fl ush wat e r a n d wash wat e r v o l u m e (gal / d ay ) (a ) 18 6, 4 00 1, 37 3

Am m oni a ni t r o g en ge ne rat i o n (l bs/ d ay ) (b ) 83 7 83 7

Ph osp h o r o us g e nerat i o n (l bs/ d ay ) (b ) 13 0 13 0

C a pt

ure d r u n o f f vol um e (gal / d ay ) 83 0, 3 00 83 0, 3 00

(a) C o st Re po r t

(b ) T DD



### Lime Disinfection System Description

The lim e disinfection system s requires a quick-lim e (calcium oxide) storage and slaking system

, a reaction tank to allow for c ontact b e tween the lim e and liquid CAFO wa ste, a pug m ill for

contact betw een scraped m a nure and lim e (scrape da iry only) and a scrubber system to capture

gaseous ammonia em issions from the liquid reac tion tank. Figure 8-1 is a conceptual diagram

showing the prim ary pieces of equipm ent include d in the lim e disinfection system for a flush

dairy. Figure 8-2 is a conceptual diagram show i ng the prim a r y pieces of equipm ent included in

the lim e disinfection system for a scrape dairy. Fo r all the flush dairy waste, and the parlor waste

from the scrape dairy, the conceptual design a ssu m e s that quick lim e is diluted in water to

approxim a tely a 12 percent (w/w) slurry and m e te red into the dairy waste using a pH m e ter and

controller to raise the pH to approximately 10. The dairy wa ste/lim e m i xture is agitated to

prom ote m i xing, and is held in the reaction tank for approxim a tely 8 hours. For both the m odel

far m s (flush and scrap e ), EPA estim ated the lim e slurry add i tio n to the liquid trea tm ent tank to

be 0.5 lbs per pound of m a nure solids (Eric Ma les, EPA Docket OW -2002-0025, DCN 40267).

Dry lim e addition to the pug m ill is also based on 0.5 lbs per pound of m a nure solids. Table 8-39

shows the design parameters for the lim e disinfection system s.

8-249

### Table 8-39. Lime Disin f ection System Design Parameters

Design P a ra m e ter Flush S y s t em Scrape Syste m

Lim e di si nfect i o n t a n k vol um e (ft 3 ) 9 2 ,100 6 1 ,900

Lim e di si nfect i o n t a n k s h a p e Sq uare Sq uare

Li m e d i sin f ectio n tank m a ter i als I n

- g ro und , epox y- co ated

,

conc ret e

, c o ver e d wi t h vent

t o scr u

bbe r I n

- g ro und , epox y- co ated

,

conc ret e

, c o ver e d wi t h vent t o

scr ubb er

Lim e di si nfect i o n t a n k dept h ( f t ) 14 14

Lim e di si nfect i o n t a n k wi dt h and l e n g t h (ft ) 10 7 88

Pu g m i ll si ze (t ons/ h ou r) NA 80

Pu g m i ll and m a nu re pa d si ze (sq feet ) NA 1, 28 0

Lim e requi rem e nts (l bs/day )

Li qui d sy st em

Pu g m i ll scrap e m a nure 9, 70 0

NA 1, 57 0

8, 13 0

Tank head spa ce blowe r size (cfm ) 10 0 10 0

M a nu re pum p/ agi t a t o r si ze ( H P) 50 50

Num b er of m a nu re p u m p / a gi tat o r as sem b l i e s 12 8

Lim e

- m anure pum p o u t rat e at m a x fl o w (g pm ) 18 ,0 0 0 12 ,0 0 0

NA: N o t a

ppl i cabl e f o r

fl ush dai r y m odel fa rm



### 8-250

### 8-251Figure 8-16.Diagram of a FlushDairy Lime Disinfection System

### 8-252Figure 8-17.Diagram of a ScrapeDairy Lime Disinfection System

### To size the liquid lim e disinfection tanks, EPA assum e d that two-thirds of the tank volum e

would be removed durin g each batch

, leaving on e-th ird of th e tank con t ents (m anure plus

residua l lime) to r eac t with th e inco m i ng raw waste. EPA also sized the m a nure pump and

agita tor a sse mblies to tra n sf er the co ntents of the lim e disinfection tank to an existing on-site

lagoon in 30 m i nutes. Vendor inform ation on the pum ping a nd agitation units is provided in the

CAFO record (EPA Doc k et OW -2005-0037, DCN 1-01218). Addition o f lim e to the dairy waste

will gene rate heat (up to 70°C) that will a i d in th e disinf ec tio n process. T o m a intain the

tem p erature of the disinf ection tank during winter m onths, EPA assum e d the tank was in-ground.

The size of the pug m ill needed to m i x lim e a nd scraped m a nure is based on the am ount of

m a nure collected in the f r ee-stall b a r n and yard a r eas. Vendo r inf o rm ation on the pug m ill is

also included in the CAFO record (EPA Docket OW -2005-0037, DCN 1-01205).

Another im portant unit process associated with th e lim e disinf ection syst em is the bulk quicklim e storage and slaking system

. For the quick -lim e storage silo sizing requirem e nts, EPA

assum e d 7 days of bulk lim e storage. EPA notes in rem o te lo cation s or lo cation s subject to

extended periods of heavy snow, this storage period m a y be inadequate and the costs m a y therefore be understated. The liqui d disinfection system s operate by m e tering dry quick-lim e into

a 2,000-gallon m i xed slurry tank and diluting with water to generate a 12 percent (w/w) lim e

slurry that is then m e tered into the manure disinfection tank. The pug m i ll system used for

scraped m a nure operates by m e tering (by weight) dry quick-lim e from the storage silo to the pug

m ill f o r contact with m a nure. Table 8-40 shows the design pa ram e ters use d to siz e and cost th e

lim e storage and slaking system

.

Table 8-40. Lime Storage and Slak ing System Design Parameters

Design P a ra m e ter Flush S y s t em Scrape Syste m

Dry Lim e stora g e ca pacity (ft 3 ) 1, 10 0 1, 10 0

Lim e st orage c a paci t y (day s ) 7 7

Lim e sl urry t a nk v o l u m e (gal ) 2, 00 0 50 0

Lim e sl urry c o ncent r at i o n (% ) 12 12

Lim e sl urry t a nk m i xer si ze ( H P) 1. 3 0. 5

Lim e sl urry m e t e ri ng p u m p si ze (H P) 0. 5 0. 5

Num b er of l i m e sl ur ry m e t e ring p u m p s 3 2



### The disinfection tank is covered to prevent the loss of gaseous ammonia due to the inc r ease in

pH when quick lim e is added. Literature inform a tion indicates between 10 and 40 percent of the

ammonia nitrogen in m a nure is converted to gaseous ammonia when lim e is added during

disinfection. For the m o del dairy CAFOs, EPA assum e d 25 percent of th e ammonia nitrogen in

the raw dairy waste entering the liquid m a nure disinfection tank is converted to gaseous

ammonia nitrogen and is transferred from the head-space abo v e the disinfection tank to a wet

scrubber u s ing a 100 cfm blower. For the pug m ill sy stem used for scrap e d m a nure, gaseous

ammonia em issions are uncontrolled.

The wet scrubber selected for the flush and scrape dairy conceptual design is a pre-fabricated

system that allows for counter-current contact be tween the ammonia rich ga s and a dilute sulfuric

acid liquid stream

. Inform ation on the ammoni a scrubber requirem ents were provided by the

8-253

### scrubber vendor, Advanced Air Technologies (E PA Docket OW -2005-0037, DCN 1-01219).

The ammonia scrubber converts ga seous ammonia to a concentrated ammonium sulfate solution

that can be used as on-site fe rtilizer. Table 8-41 shows the de sign param e ters for the ammonia

scrubber system s.

Table 8-41. Ammonia Scrubber System Design Parameters

Design P a ram e ters Flush S y s t em Scrape Syste m

Gas fl o w r a t e ( c fm ) 10 0 10 0

Scr u b b er col u m n hei ght (feet ) 9. 2 9. 2

Scr u b b er col u m n di am et er (i nche s) 13 .5 13 .5

Scru bb er w a ter f l ow r a te (gpm ) 3 3

Dai l y am m oni a ni t r oge n l o ad t o sc ru b b er (l b s / d ay ) 17 0 26

Sul f uri c aci d r e qui rem e nt (l b s / d ay ) 60 0 80

Am m oni u m su l f at e pr o duct i o n (l bs/ d ay ) 80 0 10 0

Am m oni u m su l f at e sol u t i on c once n t r at i o n ( % ) 43 43

Am m oni u m su l f at e sol u t i on s t ora g e t a n k (g a l ) 50 0 10 0



### In addition to the amm o nia scrubber, a concentrat ed sulfuric acid (98 percent w/w) storage and

delivery system is required. For the flush dair y, the sulfuric acid sto r age s y stem includes a

2,500-gallon fiberglass tank with secondary containm ent, tw o corrosion resistant m e tering

pum p s, a pH m e ter/controller, and corrosion resi s t ant p i ping to transfer th e concentrated acid

from the storage tank to the amm oni a scrubbers li quid recycle system

. Fo r the scrape dairy, the

sulfuric acid storage system requires only a 150-gallon acid storage tank and a 100-gallon

ammonium sulfate so luti on storage tank due to sm aller am ou nt of m a nure and ammonia nitrogen

entering the liquid system.

Lime Treatment System Costs

EPA estim ated installed capital, operating a nd m a intenance (O&M), and annualized costs

(2001$) for the m odel flush and scrape dairy CA FOs described above. Installed capital costs

were estim a ted by applying design factors for item s such as plum bing and electrical to

equipm ent purchased costs and published cost da ta f o r spec if ic constru c tion activ ities (EPA

Docket OW-2005-0037, DCN 1-012 06). O&M costs were estim ated based on published

chem ical cost data and from electrical requ ir em ents for m o tors associated with pum ps and

m i xers used in the disinf ection system (EPA Docket OW -2005-0037, DCNs 1-01207, 1-01209,

1-01221, and 1-01016A1) Labor requirem e nts (hours per year) for the system were based on

engineering judgm ent.

The annualized cost (capital and O&M) for th e flush dairy lim e disinfection system is

approxim a tely $335,300 per year based on an 11-y ear depreciation schedule and a 7 percent

interest rate (2001$). Annualiz ed costs for the scrape dairy C A FO is approxim a tely $343,000

per year (2001$). Detailed costs for both capit al and O&M item s are described below.

8-254

### Capital Cost Estimate

Capital costs f o r the lime disinf ec tio n system at the m odel dairy CAFO are summ arized in Table

8-42. EPA estim ated the total inst alled capital cost for the flush da iry lim e disinfection system to

be approxim a tely $1,046,000 (2001$). EPA estim a ted the total installed capital costs for the

scrape dairy lim e disinfection system to be approxim ately $925,000 (2001$). Costs do not

include engineering or contingenc y s i nce th ese costs are high ly va riable and site-specific.

Table 8-42. Estimated Capital Cost fo r Lime Disinfection of Dairy Waste

Equipment Flush S y s t em Capital Cost

( 200 1 $) Scrape S y ste m Capital

C o st ( 200 1$)

Q u ick lim e sto r ag e and d e liv er y system $ 129 ,0 00 $ 129 ,0 00

C o r r osi o n resi s t ant l i m e di si nf ect i on t a nk an d

associated pumps, m i xers, an d co nt r o l l e rs. $ 851 ,0 00 $ 604 ,0 00

Pu g m i ll sy st em for co nt act o f sc rape d m a nu re

with q u i ck lime N A $ 142 ,0 00

Am m oni a scru bbe r/ am m oni um sul f at e gene rat i o n

syste m

. $4 3, 0 00 $3 8, 0 00

C once n t r at e d s u l f uri c aci d del i v ery a n d

cont ai nm ent sy st em $2 3, 0 00 $1 2, 0 00

To ta l capita l co st: $ 1 ,046 ,0 00 $ 925 ,0 00



### Annual Operating and Maintenance Costs

Annual operating and m a intenance (O&M) costs for the lim e disinfection system s at the m odel

dairy CAFOs are summ a r ized in Table 8-43. EP A estim ated the annual O&M costs for the flush

dairy to be $227,200 (2001$) and have included a cost credit for the value of a m m onium sulfate

generated by the capture and scrubbing of ammonia from the lim e disinfection system

. Estim ated annual O&M costs for the scrape dair y are estim ated to be $252,300. Electrical costs

for both system s have been adjusted to account fo r periods when no precip itation is being treated

in the liquid lim e treatm e nt tank. Annual O&M cost s for the scrape dairy are higher than the

flush system due to the added labor n eeded to operate the pug m ill system , and the low e r am ount

of recoverab l e amm onium sulfate due to the loss of a m m onia in the pug m ill.

8-255

### Table 8-43. Estimated Annual O&M Cost for Lime Disinfection of Dairy Waste

O&M Item Flush S y s t em Ann u al O& M

C o st ( 200 1 $ / yr) Scrape Annu al O&M Cos t

( 200 1 $)

Ch em ica l s

Lim e

Su lfu r ic Acid

Amm oniu m Sulfate $ 192 ,0 00

$ 8 ,300

( $28 ,0 00 ) $ 192 ,0 00

$ 1 ,300

( $ 4

, 00 0)

El ect ri cal $3 8, 0 00 $3 2, 0 00

Lab o r $1 6, 9 00 $3 1, 5 00

To ta l annua l O&M: $ 227 ,2 00 /y r $ 252 ,3 00 /y r



### Lime Treatment System Conclusions

The annual costs for the flush and scrape m odel dairy lim e disinfection system s are

approxim a tely $335,300 per year and $343,000 per year, respectively. This cost estimate is

based only o n the equip m ent, electricity, ch em ical , and labor costs; this estim ate does not include

the cost of solids separation and is in addition to the costs associated with nutrient m a nagem e nt

planning, land application co sts, and other best m a nage m e nt practices.

To appropriately extrapolate the m o del lim e disinfection system cost to the entire dairy industry,

EPA would need to es tim a te the addition a l cos t s associa t ed w ith solids s e paration and the cos t s

that would b e required for each m odel dairy to m eet BPT. However, a rou gh estim ate of the

m i ni m u m da iry indus try costs for lime disinfec tio n can be calculated by multiply ing the m odel

system cost by the num ber of dairie s in the Large catego r y using eith er a flush or scrape system

. Table 8-44 shows the estim a ted cost for the enti re industry. The num ber s of Large dairy farm s

by region w e re determ ined from the Cost Report. This calculation produces an estim a te of

$489,359,000. Even without tak i ng into accoun t the addition a l costs of solids sep a ration and

BPT requirem e nts, the cost for lim e disinfection is m o re expensive than any other regulatory

option for dairy (other option cost s are presented in Section 15.2.3).

Because of the extrem ely high costs associated w ith lim e disinfection, EPA does not consider

this technology to be a viable option. As stated in Sect ion 8.6.2.3, costs do not include

engineering and contingency, and lim e storage costs m a y be understated for m a ny locations.

Less expensive technologies can potentially reduce FC by 99 per cent. Therefore, even though

this technology could remove an estim a ted 99 pe rcent of FC, the high cost renders the FC

pollution reductions irrelevant. Accordingly, FC loads for this technology option were not

calcu lated.

8-256

### Table 8-44. Estimated Industry Cost for Lime Disinfection

Regi on Number of

La rg e Da iries Percent

Flush Percent

Scrape Flush Dair y

Annua lized

Cos t

( 200 1$ ) Scrape Syste m

Annua lized Co st

( 200 1$ )

C e nt ral 40 1 75 25 $1 0 0

, 8 4 1

, 0 00 $3 4, 3 8 6

, 0 0 0

Mid- Atl a n t ic 10 4 50 50 $1 7, 4 3 6

, 0 0 0 $1 7, 8 3 6

, 0 0 0

M i dwest 95 50 50 $1 5, 9 2 7

, 0 0 0 $1 6, 2 9 2

, 0 0 0

Paci fi c 75 9 75 25 $1 9 0

, 8 7 0

, 0 00 $6 5, 0 8 4

, 0 0 0

So ut h 91 75 25 $2 2, 8 8 4

, 0 0 0 $7 ,8 0 3

, 0 0 0

T o t a l s : 1, 45 0 $3 4 7

, 9 5 8

, 0 00 $1 4 1

, 4 0 1

, 0 00



### 8.6.2.4 Composting of Poultry Manure or Litter

EPA investigated th e technical applicability and costs for composting of poultry m a nure or litter.

Section 8.6.2.4 describes the m e thodology and resour ces used to calculate costs for applying

com posting technology to poultry operations.

Figures 8-3 and 8-4 present the components of poultry com p osting system s for wet layers and

other poultry operations. EPA used a step-wise process to calculate com posting costs for the

poultry industry.

1. Estim ate poultry m a nure/litter com posting costs using the Methodology f o r Estim ating

the Costs of Com posting Swine and Poultr y Manure (referred to as the Poultry

Com posting Report, EPA Dock et OW -2002-0025, DCN 120039)

2. Add costs for storage ponds to collect runo ff from the com p osting area at broiler, dry

layer, and turkey operations. Add costs fo r solids separation technology at wet layer

operations.

3. Apply the dollar per bird com posting costs (including storage ponds and solids

separation) from the Poultry Com posting Report to the m odel far m s developed for the

CAFO rulem a king process.

4. Add irrigation costs to apply pond water to land application areas.

5. Sum CAFO model farm costs to calculate a total industry cost for a poultry com posting

option.

These steps and the resulting costs are explained in detail in the rem a i nder of Section 8.6.2.4.

8-257

### C o mpost Amendme n ts

Manur e

Solid L a nd

Flush S o lid- L i quid

Wa t e r A pplica t ion

Windr ow

So li d s C o mposting

L i quid R unof f

Stor age P ond Li q u i d La n d

Application



### Figure 8-18. Poultry Composti ng System fo r Wet Layers

Compost Amendme n ts

D r y L a ye r M a n u r e

Bro i l e r Lit t er Solid L a nd

Turk e y L i t t e r Appl icat ion

Wind row

C o mposting

Stor age Pond L i quid L a nd

Appli c at ion Runof f



### Figure 8-19. Poultry Composting System fo r Dry Layers, Broilers, a nd Turkeys

Poultry Composting R e port Model Farms and Composting Costs

The Poultry Com posting Report presents the m o del poultry farm s and calculated costs for

com posting at each m odel farm

. The report pres ents windro w com posting costs in d o lla rs

8-258

### (1997$) per ton of m a nure/litter fo r model farm s with wet and dry layers, broilers, and turkeys,

using two different types of com post am endm ents

. The characteristics of these m odel far m s are

specific to the Poultry C o m posting Report and are different f r om the m o del farm characteristics

developed f o r the final CAFO rule and presented in the Cost Repor t. This change was necessary

to m o re accurately reflect the costs of com posting to variou s types of poultry facilities. (See th e

“Application of Table 8-47 Costs to Mode l Farm s Developed f

o r the CAFO Rule

” section below for a description of how these tw o sets of m o del farm s are correlated.) The total

cost for each m odel farm in the Poultry Com posting Report in cludes the following com ponents:

y Planning;

y Com post a m endm ents (including water);

y Land rental for the com p osting area;

y Equipm ent for windrow turn ing (capital and operation & m a intenance) and com post

monitoring; and

y Labor for windrow turning and m oni toring (tem perature and moisture content).

Costs for solids separation of liquid waste, st orage ponds to collect runof f from the com posting

areas, or irrigation from the storage ponds are not included in this step. R e venue from com post

sales are presented in Section 8.6.2.4. Table 8-45 summarizes the m odel farm characteristics and

f i nal com p osting cos t s f r o m th e Poultry Com posting Report.

Table 8-45. Model Farms and Costs Presented in the Poultry Comp osting Report

Sect or Regi on Number

of

B i rds Annual Manure

Prod uction pe r

Model F a rm

(t ons ) Com p o s t

Amendments Windrow

Area

(acres ) To ta l

Annua lized

C o st ( 199 7$ /ton

manur e)

Lay e r: W e t So ut h 3, 65 4 1 4 9 Wheat st raw &

Saw dust 0. 09 2 8 $3 6. 5 1

Lay e r: W e t Sa wd ust So ut h 3, 65 4 1 4 9 Saw dust 0. 07 1 5 $1 8. 6 3

Lay e r: D r y So ut h 88 4, 2 9 1 6

, 8 3 8 Wheat st raw 24 .0 8 15 $2 2 9

. 7 9

Lay e r: D r y Sa wd ust So ut h 88 4, 2 9 1 6

, 8 3 8 Saw dust 11 .1 9 50 $4 9. 3 0

B r oi l e r M i d-At l a nt i c 36 ,7 9 6 58 7 W heat st raw 1. 00 4 5 $9 1. 6 5

B r oi l e r Saw d u s t M i d-At l a nt i c 36 ,7 9 6 58 7 S aw dust 0. 53 0 6 $1 9. 8 1

Tur k ey M i d- W e st 15 8, 3 6 5 9

, 6 9 1 Wheat st raw 10 .7 0 43 $4 6. 3 4

Tur k ey Sa w d u s t M i d- W e st 15 8, 3 6 5 9

, 6 9 1 Saw dust 7. 14 2 4 $1 1. 0 5



### The total annualized costs in Table 8-45 provi de the starting point for EPA’s other cost

calculations, which incorporate additional costs for runoff storage ponds, solid-liquid separation

of m a nure, and irrigation into a $/bird poultry composting cost.

8-259

### Runoff Storage Pond Costs

For dry layer, broiler, and turkey m odel fa rm s, where poultry waste is handled as a dry

substance, E P A added the cost of storage ponds to collect runoff from the com posting area. The

process described in Chapter 5.5 of the Cost Repor t was used to calculate the cost of storage

ponds. The storage pond calculations from the Cost Report were originally developed for beef

feedlot runoff, so EPA modified som e ele m ents to reflect poultry com p osting runoff as described

below.

First, EPA determ ined th e necessary pond volume using th e following eq uation.

Po nd V o l u m e = Sl u dge V o l u m e + R u n o f f ( n o r m a l and pe ak) + Net Preci pi t a t i on + Desi gn St o r m + Fre e boa r d



### Where:

y Sludge Volum e : The sludge volum e calculation us es an anim al-specific sludge

accum u latio n ratio to determ ine sludge volum e. However, the Cost Report only

presented th is ratio for b eef cat tle. E P A consulted the USDA Agricultura l Waste

Management Field Handbook to identify sludge accum u lation ratios for layers and

broilers. Sludge accumulation ratio s for la yers and broilers are 0.0295 and 0.455 cubic

feet per pou nd, respectiv ely. The slu dge accum u lation ratio for turkey s was assum e d to

be the sam e as broilers, since both use a litter-based m a nure m a nage m e nt system

.

y Runoff: The am ount of runoff entering the pond is determ ined from the net precipitation,

com posting area size, and num b er of days of storage. Runoff estim ates reflect

precip itation values for each reg i on u s ing the s a me clim ate data used for beef cattle

model farm s

. Peak precipitation represents a 25-year 24-hour storm

. The com posting

area s i ze for each m odel far m is provided in the P oultry Com p osting Repo rt, and Optio n

5A requires 180 days of storage capacity. Th e runoff contribution to the pond is reduced

by the am ount of water retained by the solids th at settle out in the basin. For the purposes

of estim ating solids entering the runoff pond, EPA assum e d t h at poultry com post runoff

and settling in storage ponds would have sim ila r characteristics to b eef feedlot runoff and

settling. Therefore, EP A used a value of 1.5 percent solids in runoff, while the solids

entering the pond are 50 percen t of the basin solids.

y Net Precipitation and Design Storm : The pond depth is increase d to allow for direct net

precipitation (average precipitation m i nus av erage evaporation) pl us the design storm

(24-hour, 25-year storm )

. Again, regional c lim ate data correspondi ng to beef cattle

model farm s for the same location w a s used.

y Freeboard: A m i ni m u m of 1 foot of fr eeboard is added to the depth.

After determ ining an appropriate volum e for the storage pond, EPA used equations from the

Cost Report to calculate the best-fit dim e ns ions for ponds at each m odel far m based on the

required volum e. Because the storag e pond volu m es for poultry operatio n s are sm aller than the

beef feedlots described in Chapter 5.5 of the Cost Report, EP A used an initial pond depth of 9

feet (instead of 10 feet, recomm ende d in the Cost Report), and a final pond depth of 10 feet when

8-260

### calculating pond dim e nsions. EPA also assum e d that em bankm e nts surround the ponds would

be the sam e size as b e rm s that su rrou nd feedlots , 6 feet wide at the base and 3 feet tall.

Next, EPA calculated the pond surface area and ex cavation an d em bankment volum es. Using

these data, along with equations and unit cost da ta from Table 5.5.3-1 in the Cost Report, EPA

calcu lated c a pita l and an nual cos t s for constructing storage ponds.

Cap ital Co st = Mo b ilizatio n + Ex cav a tion + Co m p actio n + Co nv eyan ce

Annu al Co st = 5 % × Cap ital Co st



### EPA annualized these costs, using the 11-year, 7 percent am ortization rate from the Cost Report.

EPA then calculated the $/ton m a nure cost by divi ding the annualized cost by the annual tons of

m a nure at each m odel far m (from Table 8-45). T a ble 8-46 presents th ese storage pond costs.

Table 8-46. Storage Pond Volume and Costs

Sector To ta l Po nd

Volum e (c u ft ) Ca pital C o st Operation &

Main ten a nce Annua lized

C o st ( 199 7$) $ / to n ma nure

Lay e r: D r y 1, 96 2, 9 53 $4 8 1

, 1 3 6 $2 3, 6 7 5 $ 8 1

, 4 15 $1 1. 9 1

Lay e r: D r y Sa wd ust 91 9, 0 73 $2 2 9

, 8 7 9 $1 1, 1 1 2 $ 3 8

, 7 18 $5 .6 6

Br o iler 9 1 ,554 $ 3 0

, 35 7 $ 1,136 $ 4 ,812 $ 8 .20

Br o iler Sawdust 4 9 ,726 $ 2 0

, 21 9 $ 629 $ 3 ,090 $ 5 .26

Tur k ey 55 1, 6 52 $1 4 1

, 3 7 5 $6 ,6 8 7 $2 3, 6 78 $2 .4 4

Tur k ey Sa w d u s t 36 9, 2 21 $9 7, 4 0 0 $ 4

, 4 8 8 $1 6, 2 05 $1 .6 7



### Solid-Liquid Separation Costs for Wet Layer Waste

Liquid m a nure from wet layer operations has a mo isture content of 75 percent. In com p arison,

the resp ectiv e m o isture c ontents of dry layer m a nure, broiler litter, and tur k ey litte r are 40

percent, 25 percent, and 35 per cent (Poultry Composting Report, p. 6). Solid-liquid separation

must be perform e d on wet layer waste before it can be com p osted.

EPA used the process described in C h apter 5.7 of the Cost Report to cal culate the cost of

installing and operating screen so lid-liquid separation equipm ent at wet layer operations. The

solids con t ent of separated solids is assum e d to be 23 percent and the separation efficiency is

assum e d to be 30 percent (based on Poultry Com posting Report). Capital costs are determ ined

by the following equation, and annual costs are estim ated to be 2 percent of the capital costs.

Sepa rat i o n C a p i t a l C o st = (S ol i d s v o l u m e generat e d ove r 6 m ont hs × sa f e t y fact or × St ora g e t a nk cost ) +

Sep a rato r d e v i ce + (Pip e len g th × Pi p e co st) + (In s tallatio n lab o r × Labo r rate)



### EPA calculated the solids volum e generated over a 6-m onth period using the following equation.

6

- m o . So lid s Vo lu m e = (Ann ual m a n u r e g e n e ratio n [g allon s ] × % So lid s in man u r e × % Efficien cy of separatio n)

2



### 8-261

### EPA calculated capital and annual operation and m a intenance (O&M ) costs for wet layers, then

annualized the costs. The resul ting annualized cost fo r solid-liquid separation at wet layer m odel

far m s is $4,117 (regardless of com p ost am endment t ype). E P A calculated the $/ton m a nure cost

by dividing the annualized cost by th e annual ton s of m a nure at each m odel far m (from Table 8­

45). The solid-liquid separation cost is $27.58 per ton of m a nure.

Composting Costs Including Storage Ponds and Solids Separation

EPA added the $/ton m a nure storage pond or solids separation costs from Ta ble 8-46 to the $/ton

m a nure composting cost at m odel farm s presente d in Table 8-45. Costs were converted from

1997$ to 2001$ using RS Means Historical Cost Indi ces so they can be compared or added to

other estim ated industry costs. EPA calculated $/bird com pos ting costs from the $/ton m a nure

costs using data from Table 8- 45 in the following equation.

An n u al C o st p e r B i r d = C o st of C o m post i n g wi t h Po n d / S ol i d Se p. × A n nu al M a nu re P r o duct i o n

# B i r d s



### Based on the Poultry Composting Report, EPA assu m e d that both types of com post a m endm ents

(wheat stalks and sawdust) are equally availabl e, and farm ers would c hoose the least expensive

am endm ent option. The least expensive com pos t am endm ent option for all poultry types is

sawdust, so EPA selecte d the sawdu s t option to r e presen t the layer, b r oile r, and turkey sector

com posting costs. Table 8-47 presents the $ /ton m a nure and $/bird com p osting cost data.

Table 8-47. Poultry Composting C o sts Incl uding Storage Ponds and Solids Separation

Sector Com p o s tin g C o st

from T a bl e 8

- 45

($/t on ) Ann u al C o st o f

Po nd or So lids

Sep. per T o n

Manure

($/t on ) To ta l Co st o f

Com p o s tin g

with Pond or

Solids S e p.

( 199 7$ /to n ) To ta l Co st o f

Com p o s tin g w i th

Po nd or So lids

Sep.

( 200 1$ /to n ) To ta l Co st o f

Com p o s tin g w i th

Po nd or So lids

Sep.

( 200 1$ /bird)

Layer: W e t

Saw dust $1 8. 6 3 $2 7. 5 8 $4 6. 2 1 $4 9. 8 9 $2 .0 4

Layer : Dr y

Saw dust $4 9. 3 0 $5 .6 6 $5 4. 9 6 $5 9. 3 5 $0 .4 6

B r oi l e r Saw d u s t $1 9. 8 1 $5 .2 6 $2 5. 0 7 $2 7. 0 7 $0 .4 3

Tur k ey Sa w d u s t $1 1. 0 5 $1 .6 7 $1 2. 7 2 $1 3. 7 4 $0 .8 4



### Application of Table 8-4 7 Costs to M odel Farms Developed for the CAFO Rule

The poultry com posting costs pres ented through Table 8-47 have been based on the model farm s

described in the Poultry Com posti ng Report. The $/bird costs from these four m odel far m s used

in the Poultry Com posting Report need to be co rrelated and applied to th e ninety -nin e “Large”

poultry m odel farm s that were the basis for the final CAFO rule.

EPA m a tched m odel farm s from the Poultry Com posting Report to the C A FO Cost Report m odel

far m s by anim al type and operation. Then, EPA multiplied T a ble 8-47$ /b ird cos t s by the

num b er of anim als at “Large1” and “Large2” m o del farm s to estim ate a com posting cost for each

8-262

### model farm

. Table 8-48 presents these poultry com posting costs for CAFO Cost Re port m odel

far m s.

Irrigation Costs

Next, EPA calculated capital and annual costs for irrigation system s in all CAFO Cost Report

model poultry farm s. Irrigation costs were set to zero for wet layer op erations where storage

ponds and irrigation system s would already b e in pl ace. Irrigation costs for dry lay e rs, broilers,

and turkeys were calculated using the process de scribed in Chapter 5.8 of the Cost Report.

Although Chapter 5.8 describes beef and dairy i rrigation costs, no changes were needed to

translate the m e thodology to poultry costs. The only variable used to determ ine irrigation costs

is the tota l n u m b er of irrigated ac res.

Using the capital and annual cost equations fr om Table 5.8.3-1 in the Cost Report, costs for

traveling gun irrigation were cal cula ted f o r m odel f a rm s with le ss than 30 acres of cropland and

costs for center pivot irrigation wer e calcu lated f o r m odel f a rm s with greater than 30 acres of

cropland. E P A then annualized the irrigation costs and added the irrigation costs to other

com posting costs at m o del farm s. Appendix B pr esents the irrigation costs for m odel far m s.

Poultry Composting Industry Cost

EPA summe d the m odel far m costs presented in Table 8-47 to obtain indu stry-level costs for

com posting. Table 8-48 presents these com posting costs for the poultry industry.

Table 8-48. Poultry In dustry Costs for Comp osting

Operation # o f La rg e Facilities To ta l Co st o f Co mposting (2 001 $)

Wet Lay e rs 38 3 $1 1 4

, 2 2 0

, 0 00

D r y Layer s 7 2 9 $ 137 ,2 60 ,00 0

B r oi l e rs 1, 63 2 $1 6 6

, 5 4 0

, 0 00 0

Tur k ey s 38 8 $4 8, 6 1 0

, 0 0 0

AL L 3, 13 2 $4 6 6

, 6 0 0

, 0 00



### The costs in Table 8-48 represent only the co m p osting portion (plus irrigation) for CAFO

Regulatory Option 5A. To calculate the entire cost of Option 5A for the poultry industry, these

additional costs m u st be added:

y Production area and land applicati on best m a nagem e nt practices;

y Mortality-handling requirem e nts;

y Nutrient m a nagem e nt planning and recordkeeping; and

y Transport of m a nure or litter to other far m s.

EPA believes that the poultry industry cost for Option 5A co uld be estimated by adding the

com posting costs (from Table 8-48) to Option 2 co sts ($41 m illion, from Ta ble 15-8). However,

there is som e uncertainty in this estim ati on. De pending on what com p onents the original

Option 2 costs include, there m a y be doubl e counting or om ission of some costs

.

8-263

### Assum i ng that Option 5 A costs can be calcu late d by adding com posting costs and O p tion 2 costs

and there are no cost offsets for compost sale rev e nue, the total indus try cost will b e $ 508

m illion.

Revenue and Cost Offs ets fro m Compost Sales

A portion of the industry costs for composting coul d be offset by selling the finished com post

product. The Poultry Composting Report estim ates revenue from com pos t sales at each of the

model farm s

. These costs are based on two assu mptions: 1) 80 percent volum e reduction of the

m a nure and am endm ents com posted, and 2) a compost sale price of $6 per cubic yard

. EPA

exam ined these assum p tions and found that th e com post volum e reduction is reasonable, but

$6/cubic yard seem s to be a low price estim a te for poultry compost in today’s m a rket. EPA

researched current com p ost prices an d determ ined that a m o re reason able price estim a te for

poultry compost is $20/cubic yard. T a ble 8-49 pr esents the data sources that EPA consulted.

Table 8-49. Compost Prices and Data Sources

Co mpost Sa le Price

($/cubic yard) Type of Compost Data Source

$ 3 0

. 00 Mix of layer m a n u re and b r o iler litter Biocycle , A u g

. 20 01

$3 0. 0 0 Lay e r m a nure Biocycle , A u g

. 20 01

$2 5. 4 0 B u f f al o c h i p C h ey en ne C o m post i ng Faci l i t y

$1 1. 5 0 M a nu re What c o m C o u n t y Manu re C o m p o s t Ma rketi n g

Gui d e

$1 0. 0 0 Gene ral

- b u l k Biocycle , Dec. 2004

$1 5. 0 0 Gene ral

- b u l k Biocycle , O c t. 2 004

$6 .0 0

- $ 1 5

. 0 0 Yar d wast e No rt h C a r o l i n a De part m e nt of En vi r onm ent and

Natural Resou r ces



### To estim ate com post sale revenues for the poultr y CAFO industry, EPA calculated a dollar per

bird ($/bird) revenue for wet a nd dry layer, broiler, and turkey operations using data from the

Poultry Composting Report and the price estim a te of $20/cubic yard in the following equation:

Dol l a r pe r B i r d R e ve nue = C o m post Sal e Pri ce pe r C u bi c Y a rd × C u bi c Y a rds o f C o m post per M o del F a rm

# B i r d per M o del Fa rm



### EPA applied this $/bird value to m odel farm s used in the CAFO rule-m a k ing process. The

CAFO model farm revenues were summ ed to dete rm ine industry revenue from com p ost sales.

Assum i ng a price of $20 per cubic yard of com p ost, the industr y revenue from com pos t sales

will be $252 ,630,000. When this revenue is sub t racted from the indus try com posting costs, th e Option 5A cost is $255 m illion. The sales p r ice of com post m a y decrease or increas e depending

on availability of bulking m a teri als and m a rket dem a nd. For ex am ple, if all Large poultry

CAFOs composted m a nure, in som e areas an in flux of com pos t m a y flood the m a rket, driving

the sa les pr ice down or even elim inating the pos itiv e dollar v a lue.

Appendix B contains data tables presenting the costs per m ode l farm for poultry com p osting.

8-264

### 8.6.3 Pollutant L oad Calculations

EPA applied the estim ated pollutant loads generated for the Options 2, 3 and 5 in 2003 rule to

this BCT cost test. For Option 5a, 6 and 7 EP A updated the models’ assu m p tions and recreated

(or in som e cases generated for the first tim e ) the loads estim ations (EPA Docket OW-2005-0037

DCN 1-02000). The updated assum p tions for each of the m o dified options were:

y Option 5A for beef, dairy, and heifer operations has the sam e elem ents as Option 2, plus

im ple m entation of a drier m a nure m a nagem e nt system (i.e., com posting). To estim ate the

loads from Option 5a it was assum e d that th e bacteria levels were reduced by 99 percent

prior to land application. In addition, the loads from th e overflows were reduced by the

efficiencies reported for solids s e parati on in the TDD (BOD: 40%, TS: 57%, TN: 58%,

TP: 50%, Bacteria: 57%). Sedim e nt discharg es from cropland were assum e d to equal

those previously estim a ted for Option 2.

y Option 6 has the sam e elem ents as Option 2 plus im ple m entation of anaerobic digestion

with energy recovery for the large sw in e and dairy operations only. (Note heifer

operation would not have to install digester s, but they are pres ented under the general

DAIRY category). To es tim ate the lo ads from Option 6 it was assum e d that the bacteria

levels were reduced by 99 percent prior to land application. In a ddition, the loads from

the lagoon overflows were reduced by the effici encies reported for anaerobic digesters in

the TDD (BOD: 85%, TS: 30%, TN: 65%, TP: 85% , Bacteria: 99%). These reductions

were applied to large swine and dairy opera tions only. As noted above there were no

changes to the pollu tants in the overflows from heifer operations.

y Option 7 has the sam e elem ents as Option 2, plus tim ing restrictions on land application

of anim al waste to frozen, snow-covered, or saturated ground. To estim ate the loads from

Option 7 it was assum e d that m odel f acilities th at incu rred c o sts f o r additional storage

would also elim inate any lagoon overflows. Under Option 7, the costs m o del had costs

f o r swine f acilities in th e MA and M W

. It was assum e d that beef and dairy facilities in

the MA and M W would also conservatively elim inate all lagoon overflows under this

option.

The m odels available for sim u lating pollutant reductions from land application practices

(GLEAMS, EPIC, and BASINS) do not m easure B OD, and EPA was not able to quantify BOD

from land application in the 2003 final CAFO rule

. BOD in runoff from land application areas

contains BOD from manure and pro c ess wastewaters, bu t it al so contains BOD from organic

m a tter including background soil organic m a terial s and crop residues. In contrast to crop

residues, degradation of m a nure BOD is highly se nsitive to moisture an d aerobic conditions, and

quickly form s inorganic m a terials and nutrien ts after land applica tion, as evidenced by

significant off-gassing (odor) as the m a nure decom poses imm e diat ely following land application

(EPA Docket OW -2005-0037, DCN 1-01230). BOD deliv eries to surface water are also highly

variable, but current literature s uggests the tim ing of la nd application in relation to f u ture ra inf a ll

events is a k e y param e ter.

8-265

### Since the 2003 CAFO rule, m odels including WA M ( W atershed Assessm e nt Model) and W M M

(W atershed Managem e nt Model) were developed that have som e waters hed level BOD m odeling

capability (f or exam ple, see “TMDLs f o r Nutr ien t , DO, and BOD f o r Delaney Creek,” March

2005, EPA Docket OW-2005-0037, DC N 1-01222). The data required for the W MM model

includes: area of all the la nd use categories and the area se rved by septic tanks; percent

im pervious area of each land category; event m ean concentration of runoff (EMC) from land use

for each pollutant type and land use catego r y; pe rcent EMC of each pollutant type th at is in

suspended form ; and annual precipitation. The lack of data/literature to support estim ation of

national BOD loadings from land applied m a nure is a significant issue. E P A concludes the

capability is still not available to m o re accurately model BOD runoff.

The 2003 CAFO rule prohibits dry weather disc harges from land application areas, and EPA

further believes the BPT land application require m e nts (including technical standards for tim ing,

for m , and rate of application, as well as the re quired vegetated buffer, setback, or equivalent

practices ) already m i nimize discharg es of BOD fro m land application areas. For all of these

reasons, EP A believes the reductions in BOD in runoff from land application areas, specifically

the BOD attributable to m a nure and process was t ewater, are m i ni m a l in com p arison to

production area discharges of BOD. Theref ore E P A’s load reductions for BOD include

production area discharges (overflow s and runoff from m a nur e storage), but do not include land

application.

Runoff of la nd applied m a nure was sim u lated using the Groundwater Loading Effects of

Agricultural Managem e nt System s (GLEAMS) m odels EPA developed f o r the 2003 CAFO rule

(See III-19 of Loads Report). GLEAMS is a field-scale m o del that sim u lates hydrologic

transport, erosion, biochem i cal pr ocesses such as chem ical tran sform a tion and plant uptake, and

nutrient lo sses in surface runoff, sedim e nt, a nd groundwater leachate and is described in the

Loads Report. The National W a ter Pollution Control Assessm e nt Model (NW P CAM ) is a

national surf ace-water q u ality m odel designed to characterize water qua lity for the nation' s

network of rivers, streams, and lakes. In the 2003 final CAFO ru le analysis, NW PCAM

sim u lations predic t tha t , on average n a tionwide, 75 percent of FC, 88 percent of BOD, and 79

percen t of TSS that re ac h the edge -o f-field will reach surface waters (all calcu lated at the RF3

level). EPA summed the reduced discharges of conventional pollutants from m odeled overflows

(See Loads Report f o r more inf o rmation ) with th e land application edge-of-field load analyses

(the GLEAMS sim u lations followed by attenu a tion in the N W PCAM model) to qua ntif y reductions in conventional pollutant discharg es from both the production area and the land

application area.

Tables 8-50, 8-51, and 8-52 summarize the pollutant lo ads data as they were calculated and used

for the EPA CAFO rulem a king process and BCT cost test. A ppendix C presents additional

pollutant loads data.

8-266

### Table 8-50. Sediment Load Redu ctions from Large CAFOs in Millions of Pounds per Year

Sect or Opti on 1 Opti on 2 Opti on 3 Opti on 5 a Opti on 5 Opti on 6 Opti on 7

Cattle 1 200 .8 1 200 .8 1 200 .8 1 225 .6 N/A 1 200 .8 1 200 .9

Dai r y 99 .3 99 .4 99 .4 10 6. 6 N/ A 10 8. 2 10 6. 7

Swi n e 0. 0 11 2. 8 11 2. 8 N/ A 11 3. 4 11 3. 3 11 3. 4

Po ul t r y 31 .2 17 2. 4 17 2. 4 17 2. 4 N/ A 17 2. 4 17 2. 4

Po ul t r y ( w et ) 0. 0 8. 5 8. 5 N/ A 98 .0 8. 5 8. 5

To tal 1 331 .4 1 594 .0 1 594 .0 1 504 .5 2 1 1

. 4 1 603 .3 1 601 .8



### Table 8-51. FC Load Reductions from Large CAFOs in 10 19 

### Colony Forming Units

Sect or Opti on 1 Opti on 2 Opti on 3 Opti on 5 a Opti on 5 Opti on 6 Opti on 7

Cattle 1 0 .5 1 0 .6 1 0 .6 2 6 0

. 4 N/A 1 0 .6 1 1 .1

Dai r y 1. 0 1. 0 1. 0 31 .4 N/ A 34 .3 23 .9

Swi n e 0. 4 0. 4 0. 4 N/ A 13 7. 8 13 7. 4 13 6. 5

Po ul t r y 6. 7 6. 7 6. 7 7. 2 N/ A 6. 7 6. 7

Po ul t r y ( w et ) 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 N/ A 56 .5 0. 0 0. 0

Tot a l 18 .7 18 .7 18 .7 29 9. 0 19 4. 3 18 9. 0 17 8. 2



### Table 8-52. BOD Load Reductions from Larg e CAFOs in Millions of Pounds per Year

Sect or Opti on 1 Opti on 2 Opti on 3 Opti on 5 a Opti on 5 Opti on 6 Opti on 7

Cattle 0

. 0 0

. 0 0

. 0 2

. 9 N/A 0

. 0 0

. 0

Dai r y 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 1. 2 N/ A 2. 2 1. 8

Swi n e 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 N/ A 7. 4 6. 3 7. 2

Po ul t r y 6. 0 6. 0 6. 0 6. 0 N/ A 6. 0 6. 0

Po ul t r y ( w et ) 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 N/ A 13 .3 0. 0 0. 0

Tot a l 6. 0 6. 0 6. 0 10 .1 20 .7 14 .5 15 .0



### 8.6.4 References

Alexander, Ron, Rod Tyler, and Nora Goldstein. Increasing Dollar Value for Com p ost Products.

Biocycle . 45(10), 48. October 2004. EPA Docket OW -2005-0037, DCN 1-01008.

Brazy, Am y. ERG Inc. Mem o randum : Methodology to Calculate Da iry Anaerobic Digestion

Costs

. 15 Decem ber 2000. EPA Docket OW -2002-0025, Section 6, DCN 00815.

Bundy, Dwa ine & Gary Greene. Evaluation of Alkaline By-Produc ts for the Control of Swine

Odor in Manure Storage

. International Livestock Odor Conference, 1995. Em ail to Ron

Jordan USEPA from Eric Males, Nationa l Lim e Association. June 30, 2000, EPA

Docket OW-2002-0025, W

- 00- 27, Section 4.5, DCN 40267.

8-267

### City of Cheyenne Solid Waste Division. Cheyen ne Composting Facility ( w ebsite). A v ailab l e

online at http://www.cheyennecity.org/com post.htm

, accessed 30 Nove mber 2005. EPA

Docket OW-2005-0037, DCN 1-01009.

Coker, Craig and Nora Goldstein. Ch aracterizing the Composting Industry. Bio cycle . 45(12),

20. Decem ber 2004. EPA Docket OW -2005-0037, DCN 1-01010.

Cram er, Allen. Whatcom County Manure Com post Marketing Guide. Whatcom Conservation

District, W a shington State University Cooperative Extension, W a shington State

Departm e nt of Ecology Cente nnial Clean W a ter Fund. 1998 (or m o re recent). Available

online a t http://wha tcom.wsu.edu/ag/com post/pdfs/Mark eting % 20Guide.PDF, accesse d

30 Nove m b er 2005. EPA Dock et OW -2005-0037, DCN 1-01011.

Energy Inform ation Adm i nistration. Residential Electr i city Prices: A C onsumer's Guide . U.S.

Departm e nt of Energy, National Energy Info rmation Center. Available online at

http://www.eia.doe.gov/neic/brochure/electric ity/electricity.htm l

. 2005. EPA Docket

OW -2005-0037, DCN 1-01221.

Faucette, Br itt. Geo r gia Builds Poultr y Litter Co mposting In f r astruc ture. Biocycle . 42(8), 23-26.

August 2001. EPA Doc k et OW -2005-0037, DCN 1-01012

Males, Eric. Fraser River Action Plan, Biosolids Stabilization Demonstration Project (DOE

FRAP 1998- 06). Environm ent Canada. March 1998. Em ail to Ron Jordan USEPA fr om

Eric Males, National L i m e Association. June 30, 2000. EPA Docket OW -2002-0025,

W

- 00-27, Se ction 4.5, D C N 40267.

Males, Eric. National L i m e Association, em a il to Paul Shriner, USEPA. Septem ber 22, 2000,

EPA Docket OW -2002-0025, W 00- 27, Section 4.5, DCN 40295.

McLanahan Corporation. Pug Mill Mixers

. Available online at

http://www.m c lanahan.com /pdf/bcr_pugm ill.pdf. 2006. EPA Docket OW -2005-0037,

DCN 1-01205.

Metcalf and Eddy, Inc. Wastewater Engineering (3rd Edition). 1991. EPA Docket OW -2005­

0037, DCN 1-01002.

Minnesota Departm e nt of Adm i nistration, Office of Geographi c and Demographic Analysis,

Environm ental Quality Board. Generic En v i ron m ental Im pact Statem ent (GEIS) on

Ani m al Agriculture. Available online at: http://www.eqb.state.m n.us/geis/, accessed 30

Nove m b er 2005. EPA Docket OW -2005-0037, DCN 1-01230.

National Research Council. Ma naging W a stewaters in Coastal Urban Areas. National Academ y

Press. 1993. EPA Docket OW -2005-0037, DCN 1-01198.

North Carolina Departm e nt of Environm ent and Natural Resources: Division of Pollution

Prevention and Environ m ental Assistance. Organics: Yard Wastes Com m odity Profile

.

8-268

### 1998. Available online at http :// www.p2pays.org/ref/02/0162 216.pdf, accessed 30

Nove m b er 2005. EPA Docket OW -2005-0037, DCN 1-01013.

R.S. Means. Mossm an, Melville (Ed

. ). Mechanical Cost Data: 24 th 

### Annual Edition (p. 577),

2001. EPA Docket OW-2005-0037, DCN 1-01003.

RS Means. Construction and Building Cost Data

. 2001. EPA Docket OW -2005-0037,

DCN 1-01206.

Skousen, Jeff; Jenkins, Mike. Acid Mine Drainage Treatment Costs with Calcium Dioxide and

the Aquafix Machine

. W e st Virgin ia Univers i ty Exte nsion Service, Agricultural and

Natural Resources Developm ent. Available online at

http://www.wvu.edu/~agexten/landrec/aqua fix.htm

. 1993. EPA Docket OW -2005-0037,

DCN 1-01207.

Slogan System s. Hydrated Lime Slurry System

. EPA Docket OW -2002-0025, W

- 00-27, Section

4.5, DCN 40264.

Tetra-Tech, Inc. Memo: Labor Rate for Technical Cons ultation for Digester Operation.

Nove m b er 2005. EPA Docket OW -2005-0037, DCN 1-02002.

Tetra-Tech, Inc. Memo: CAFOs Cost s for Digesters with No Energy Recovery. December 2005.

EPA Docket OW -2005-0037, DCN 1-02001.

Tetra-Tech, Inc. Memo: Cost and Load General Assumptions. Nove m b er 2005. EPA Docket

OW -2005-0037, DCN 1-02000.

Tetra-Tech, Inc. Methodology for Estim ating the Costs of Com posting Swine and Poultry

Manure. Septem ber 2001. EPA Doc k et OW -2002-0025, DCN 120039.

USDA NASS. Available online at h ttp:// www.nass.usda.gov /QuickStats, accessed Novem b er

2005.

USDA NRCS. Agricultural Waste Management Field Handbook . 1992. Available online at

http://ianrpu b s.unl.edu/w a stem gt/g1371.htm

, accessed 15 Novem b er 2005.

USDOD. Secondary Use of Acids and Alka lis for Wastewater Treatment. NAVY/MARINES

Joint Serv ices PPO Handbook. Availab l e online p2library.nfesc.navy.m il/

P2_Opportunity_Handbook/9-I-1.htm l

. 2004. EPA Docket OW -2005-0037, DCN 1­

01209.

USDOE. 1998. United States De partm e nt of Energy (DOE): Monthly Electric Utility Sales and

Revenue Report with State Distributions. Energy Inform ation Adm i nistration, FormEIA826.

8-269

### USEPA. Ag STAR FarmWare Model. Version 2.0. February 1997. EPA Docket OW-2005­

0037, DCN 1-01203.

USEPA. Better Assessm ent Science Integrating P o int and Nonpoint Sources (BASINS) (EPA823-B-01-001). U.S. Environm ental Protecti on Agency, Office of W a ter, W a shington,

DC. 2001.

USEPA. Cost Methodology for the Fi nal Revisions to the N a tional Pollutant Discharge

Elimination System Regu lation and th e Efflu en t G u idelines fo r Concentrated Animal

Feeding Operations (EPA-821-R-03-004). December 2002.

USEPA. De velopm ent Docum e nt for the Final Revisions to the Nation a l Pollu tant D i scharg e

Elim ination System Regulation and the Efflue nt Guidelines for Concentrated Anim al

Feeding Operations (EP A -821-R-03-001). December 2002.

USEPA. Nationa l W a ter Pollution Control Asse s s m e nt Model (NWPCAM). Available online at

http://iaspub.epa.gov/edr/edr_proc_qry.na vigate?P_LIST_OPTION_CD= C SDIS&P_RE

G_AUTH_IDENTIFIER=1&P_DATA_ IDENTIFIER=89813&P_VERSION=1.

USEPA. Pollutan t Loa d ing Reductions for the Effluen t Lim itations Guideline s for Concentrate d

Animal Feeding Operations (EPA-8 21-R-03-00 7). Decem ber 2002.

USEPA. Watersh ed Ass e ssm ent Model. Available online at

http://www.epa.gov/ATHENS/wwqtsc/W A M V iew.pdf.

Knisel, W

. G., F.M. Davis, R.A. Leonard, and A.D. Nicks. 1993. GLEAMS: Groundwater

Loading Effects of Agricultu ral Management Systems, Version 2.10.

Sharpley, A. N., and J.R. W illiam s . 1990. EPIC-Erosion/Productivity Impact Calculator: 1.

Model Documentation. USDA Tech. Bull. No. 1786. U.S. Departm e nt of Agriculture,

Washington, DC.

8-270

# Chapter 15

A DDITIONAL 

# A NAL YSES IN 

# R ESPONSE T O THE 

# 2005 S ECOND 

# C IRCUIT



# C OUR T 

# D ECI S ION

Chapter 15 presents the additional analyses that EPA perform e d in response to the 2005 Second

Circuit Court decision. EPA reexamined the New Source Perform a nce Standards (NSPS) and

developed an alternative BCT cost test for fecal coliform

. EPA perfor m e d the conven tional BCT

cost test for BOD and TSS and the alternative f ecal co liform cost test for candidate technologies.

15.1 Ne w Source Performan ce Standards

Section 15.1 presents the inform ation supporti ng the proposed regulations f o r NSPS, including

the 100-year storm containm ent structure and su perior alternative performance standards.

15.1.1 100-Year Storm Containment Stru cture

EPA proposed to rem ove the provision allowi ng CAFOs to meet the no discharge standard

through the use of the 100-year, 24 -hour rain event containm ent st ructure. Facilities with open

m a nure storage stru ctu r es m a y demonstrate th e no discharge requirem e nts using site-specific

design, construction, operation, and m a intenance com ponents and the U.S. Departm e nt of

Agriculture Natural Res ources Conservation Service Anim al W a ste Managem e nt (AWM) m odel.

While one m echanism to prevent d i scharge fro m an open system is to provide ‘adequate’ storage

of m a nure and wastewater during critical periods, EPA believes it is m u ch m o re com p l e x than

that. In fact, the capacity for any specified stor m event (such as a 100-year , 24-hour rainfall) is a

sm all com p onent in determ ining overall storage capacity. Adequate storage is based on a sitespecific ev aluation of the CAFO’s entire waste ha ndling system. Factors such as rainy seasons

and storag e capacity for the winter are read ily fa ctored into the proper de sign and construction of

any storage facility. Adequate st orage has to be defined in term s of clim at e-spec ific variab les

that define the appropriate stor age volum e , but of equal im porta nce are the nutrient m a nagem e nt

plan and other m a nage ment decisions that dict ate when and how the storage can be emptied.

The link between adequate storage and land appli cation practices is one o f the m o st critical

considerations in developing a nd im plem enting a site-specific nutrient m a nagem e nt plan. For

exam ple, the am ount of l a nd available for appli cation, th e hyd raulic lim itations (ability of the

land to handle additional water without the occu rrence of runoff), geology, and soil properties of

the available land base can play an important role. See Chapte r 2 of EPA’s technical guidance

for CAFOs “Managing Manure Nutrien t s at Con centrated A n im al Feeding Operatio ns” (EPA821-B-04-00) for m o re infor m ation.

Given these concerns, E P A has developed a set of procedures with the ex pectation th at a sys t em

designed in accordan ce with such procedures ca n be reason ably expected to m e et the no

discharge requirem e nts. They are:

15-1

### 1. Gather inform ation about the specific opera tion to be analyzed and the regulatory

fra m ework in which it operates.

2. Design the storage facility using design pr ocedures in the NRCS “Agricultura l W a ste

Managem e nt Field Handbook,” NEH-651.

3. Evaluate the adequacy of the AW M designe d s t orage facility using the So il Plan t Air

Water (SPAW ) Hydrology Tool.

This three-step procedure to design and then eval uate a m a nure storage facility can be applied to

any given location (a m a nure tr eatm e nt lagoon that has a storag e com ponent is essentially a

m a nure storage facility for this discussion). The process in general was pr eviously described in

two papers d e livered to the Am erican Society of Agricultural Engineer s, Moffitt et al, 2003 and

Moffitt and B. W ilson, 2004 (EPA Docket OW -2005-0037, DCNs 1-01223 and 1-012 24).

The first step in the process is to gather inform ation about the specific op eration to be analyzed

and the regulatory fram e w ork in which it opera tes. The regulatory fram ework could include:

state requirem ents for m i nim u m storage periods f o r rainy seasons or winter or additional

m i ni m u m capacity requirem e nts for chronic rain f a lls; technical standards that prohibit or

otherwise lim it land application to frozen, saturated, or snow-c overed ground; standards that

further lim it land application where there is a hi gh risk of nutrient tran spo r t; increased storage

capacity with the in tent to transfer th e m a nure to another recipient at a later tim e ; and any other

special requirem ents that would im pa ct the size of the sto r age fac ility. The operator’s

m a nage m e nt options and needs are to be includ ed in the design and evaluation, as discussed

below. For exam ple, frequent dewatering for co ntinuous grasses is quite different from seasonal

applications to a given crop rotation.

The second step is the design of the storage facility using design procedures in the NRCS

“Agricultural W a ste Managem e nt Field Handbook,” NEH-651. This can be accom p lished using

Ani m al W a ste Management (AW M ) software, which is NRCS’s m a nure storage/treatm ent

planning/design software tool for anim al feedi ng operations that can be used to estim ate the

production of m a nure, bedding, and pr ocess water and to determ ine the size of storage/treatm ent

facilities. T h e Comm on Com puting Environm ent (CCE) version of AWM 2.10 is currently

available on the web, and planned software updates in the near future are not expected to change

the general f o rm of the tool. Site -sp ecif i c inpu t to AW M in cludes clim ate data for 30 years

consisting of historical average m onthly precipit ation obtained from local weather stations, and

evaporation values obtained from the Nati onal Oceanic and Atmospheric Adm i nistration

(NOAA). Additional inputs include anim al num b ers and typical anim al sizes/weights, added

water and bedding (if any), and the size and cond ition of outside areas exposed to rainfall and

contributing runoff to the storage facility. AW M allows th e u s er to sp ecif y a storag e p e riod

(m onths), and the software will design for the se ries of m onths with the m o st rainfall. The

program will not des i gn a system in excess of 12 m onths, as such designs are not reco mmended.

As an alternative, the user can designate m onths when the storage pond can be em ptied, and

AW M sizes the pond based on the months with the m o st precipitation between pum p ing events.

The output o f this step is the des i gn o f a wast e sto r age f acility. AW M provides a se rie s of

reports describing the storage f acility and providing a listing of the rela te d specif ica t ions

15-2

### including the dim e nsions of the storage facility, daily m a nure and wastewater add itions, the size

and characteristics of the fields, and other m a na gem e nt assumptions such as storage period.

The third ste p is an eva l u a tion of the adequacy of the AW M de signed storage facility using the

Soil Plant Air W a ter (SPAW ) Hydrology Tool. Th e current version of SPAW is 6.1. SPAW is a

field-level tool that uses a m odified Soil Cons ervation Service Curve Number Method to develop

water budgets for agricultural fields. Water budget processes are evaluated by m a king daily

adjustm e nts to crop cano py cover an d anteced ent so il m o isture. Field water budgets can be used

for evaluating runoff and infiltration from precipitation events. SPAW also provides an

integrated pond m odule to develop pond water b udgets that is ideal for evaluation purposes.

Input to SP AW includes daily precipitation, temper ature, and evaporation data; storage facility

dim e nsions and m a nure related quantities extracte d from AWM; and the strategies for m a naging

the sto r age f acility. For each user-sp ecified so il profile and crop rotation, SPAW si mulates

possible runoff from fields as we ll a s the irrig a tio n water need s of fields receiving the storage

effluent. Hydrologic groups are used to rate soils for potential to release excess water down

grade.

EPA notes that where A W M software is used for design and S P AW is used for evaluation,

additional software for nutrient m a nagem e nt pl anning m a y be appropriately linked and the NMP

data can then be im ported. For example, see p. 6-12 of Managing Manure Nutrients at

Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (EPA-821-B-04-009) for a discussion of “Manure

Managem e nt Planner” or “MMP,” a com p rehe nsive W i ndows-based planning tool for m a nure

m a nage m e nt

.

SPAW is then run with the site-s pecifi c hi st ori c rai n fal l records to see if the open containm ent

system (referred to as a pond in SPAW ) and asso ciated m a na gem e nt and land application are

adequate to elim inate any discha rge. EPA believes that a hist orical look at 100 years is an

adequate tim e fra m e to support a finding of no disc harge. However, EPA is aware that 100 years

of continuous rainfall data m a y not be availabl e f o r m a ny CAFOs. The SPAW model can be run

using actual rainfall data where availa ble, and th e n sim u lated with a confidence in terv al analysis

over a period of 100 years. The SPAW m odel s hows not only that the st orage facility does not

discharg e, b u t also that there is no runoff of wastewater from fields during land application

activities, a necessary st ep in m eeting the hydraulic lim itations of the land application area. In

practice, if the SPAW e v aluation in dicated any le vel of disch a rge or any spillway flo w , the pond

design volum e could be increased in size in AWM, the new dim e nsions converted to SPAW

input, and the sim u lation done again. This iter ative procedure could continue until the pond

sim u lation predicts no discharge. If the facility shows no disc harge over the 100-year

sim u lation, then the requirem ent of no discharge has been achieved.

EPA has developed several case stud ies using this approach. Case studies of swine facilities

using this ap proach are p r esente d in Table 15-1. More detailed inf o rm ation on the inp u ts to

SPAW as well as the SP AW outputs m a y be found in a sepa ra te m e m o to the reco rd (E PA

Docket OW-2005-0037, DCNs 1-01225 and 1-01226).

15-3

### Table 15-1. Case Studies Using AWM a nd SPAW to Demonstrate No Discharge

Lo catio n Number

of

He ad St orag e

Period

(mo n th s) Modeled

Dewatering

Frequenc y D o t h e ma n u r e le v e ls

reach the maximum

oper ati n g l e ve l ? An y

predicted

over f l o w s ??

No rt h C a r o l i n a 50 0 0 6 m ont hs Pum pout e v e r y 6

m ont hs Yes No

Io wa 50 0 0 6 m ont hs Pum pout e v e r y 6

m ont hs Yes No

Geo r gia 24 5 4 6 m ont hs C ont i n u ous i rri gat i on No No

Pum pout e v e r y 6

m ont hs Yes No

Neb r as ka 16 0 0 5 m ont hs Pum pout 3 t i m es pe r

year No No

So ut h C a rol i n a 35 2 0 5 m ont hs Spri n g f o l l o we d by

seasonal irri gat i on No No



### If the AW M design does not provide the result of no predicted overflows, the CAFO could

evaluate different designs and m a nagem e nt op tions (such as different storage periods and

dewatering schedules consistent with the CAFO’s NMP) that do not result in any predicted

discharges, or the CAFO could conclude an open sy stem is not appropriate for the particular site

being evaluated.

The dem ons tration requires certain infor m ation regarding design, operation, and m a intenance of

the system that would be included in th e CAFO’s NMP under 40 CFR 122.42(e)(1). This

inform ation includes the key user-d efined inputs and m odel system param e ters. The site-specific

design, construction, operation, and m a intenance m easures would then becom e enforc eable

requirem e nts in the CAFO’s perm it. As long as the CAFO complies with these requirem e nts, the

CAFO would presum ptively m eet no discharge even if it actuallydid discharge during extrem e

weather conditions. As with the “V oluntary alte rnative perf orm a nce standards” provision for

existing sources, the burden is on the CAFO to dem onstrate any open system they e m ploy m eets

the new source stand a rd. EPA believ e s that this would provide a clear an d enforceable elem ent

for the CAFO as well as provide assurance to the public that th e proposed system woul d com p ly

with the no discharge requirem e nts.

15.2 Best Conventional Pollutant Control Technology

Section 15.2 presents a summ ary of t h e propos ed BCT m e thodology, incl uding the incorporation

of FC re m o vals into the two-pa rt cost-reasonableness test, and pr esents the results of th e BCT

cost test.

In considering whether to propose revised BCT li m its for the Subpart C and D subcategories,

EPA considered whether techno logies are av ailable that ach ieve greater rem ovals of

conventional pollutants than the cu rrent BPT effl uent lim itations guidelines. See Chapter 8 for a

description of these technologies. E P A also c onsidered whether those technologies are costreasonab l e according to the BCT cost test, whic h com p ares the increm ental rem ovals and costs

associated w ith BCT lim itations to a baseline ass o ciated with BPT. The candidate BCT

15-4

### technologies do not pass the BCT cost test. Ther efore, EPA is not proposing m o re stringent BCT

lim itations f o r Subparts C and D of t h is industry category.

15.2.1 Background of BCT Cost Test

The CWA Am endments that created BCT also specify that th e cost as sociated with B C T effluent

lim itations b e “rea sonable” with r e sp ect to th e effluent reductions. Accordingly, the “BCT

Methodology” was developed to answer the ques tion of whether it is “cost-reasonable” for

industry to control conventional po llutants at a level m o re stringen t than already required by BPT

effluent lim itations. The BCT m e thodology was originally published on August 29, 1979 along

with the promulgation of BCT ELGs for 41 subcat egories of the second ary industries (44 FR

50732). The crux of the m e thodology was a compar ison of the costs of removing conventional

pollutants for an average-sized publicly owned treatm e nt works (POTW )

. The Fourth Circuit

Court rem a nded the regu lation, and d i rected EPA to develop an industry cost tes t in ad dition to

the POTW test. EPA proposed a revised BCT m e thodology in 1982 (47 FR 49176) that

addressed the industry cost test

. EP A proposed to base the P O TW benchm ark on m o del plant

costs in a 1984 noti ce (49 FR 37046).

The final BCT m e thodology was published on July 9, 1986 (51 FR 24974), m a intaining the basic

approach of the 1982 proposed BCT m e thodology a nd adopting the use of the new model POTW

data. These guidelines state that the BCT cost analysis “...answe rs the question of whether it is

‘cost reasonable’ for industry to control convent ional pollutants at a leve l m o re stringent than

BPT effluent lim itations already require.” C onventional pollutants are five-day biological

oxygen demand (BOD), total suspended solid s (TSS), oil and grease, FC , and pH.

The 1986 BCT m e thodology analysis incorporates two co st tests to establish cost reasonableness:

the POTW Test and the Industry Cost Test. Each of these tests are com p ared with established

benchm arks. The POTW benchm a r k used in the 1986 FRN is $0.25 pe r pound (in 1976 dollars)

for industries where cost per pound is based on l ong-term perform a nce data. This benchm ark

was developed using only BOD and TSS pollu tant rem ovals. (See 51 FR 24974 for more

inform ation on these two cost tests and benchm arks.)

The 1986 FRN notes that FC is not included in th e POTW Test calculati ons because control of

that pollutant is not m easurable as “pounds re m o ved” (FC is typically m easured in colony

for m ing units (CFUs) 1 

### , but offers no alternative m eans for a ddressing F C in BCT cost analyses.

As such, the established cost test benchm arks do not incorporate FC rem o vals. However, the

1986 FRN a l so notes that in the case where there is a lack of com p arable industry data, a strict

com p arison to the benchm ark m a y underm ine C ongress’ intent on cost reasonableness.

Therefore, E P A can develop appropriate indust ry -specific p r o cedures to evaluate cost

reasonableness. (51 FR 24976) For CAFOs, EPA developed procedures for evaluating cost

reasonableness of BCT controls for FC.

1 A co lon y fo rm in g un it is actually a sin g l e b a cteriu m

. Th e “CFU” term is deriv e d fro m th e test m e th o d wh ere

sam p le water is app lied t o a co n t ro lled m e d i u m (su c h as a Petri d i sh ) and in d i v i d u a l b act eria cells m u lti p l y un til th ey

fo rm col oni es, whi c h ca n be e a si l y recog n i z e d a n d co u n t e d.



### 15-5

### 15.2.1.1 BCT Cost Test Calculation Steps

Establishing BCT effluent lim itations for an i ndustrial category or subcategory begins by

identifying technology options that provide addi tional conventional polluta nt control beyond that

provided by application of BPT e ffluent lim itatio ns. EPA evaluates the candidate technologies

by applying the two-part BCT cost test.

The first part of the BCT cost test is the POTW te st. To “pass” the POTW test, the cost per

pound of conventional pollutant discharges rem o ved in upgrading from BPT to the candidate

BCT must be less than the cost per pound of conventional pollutant rem o ved in upgrading

POTW s from secondary tr eatm ent to advanced secondary treatm ent.

The second part of the test that the “candidate” BCT technology m u st pass is the industry cost

test. In th is test the r a tio of increm ental co st s to u pgrade from BPT to BCT over the increm ental

costs to upgrade from no treatm ent to BPT is co mpared to the ratio of increm ental costs for a

POTW to upgrade from s econdary treatm ent to advanced treatm e nt over the increm ental costs

for a POTW to upgrade f r om no treatm e nt to secondary treatm e nt.

Historically, EPA has evaluated the cost-r easonableness of each technology option on a

subcategory basis. However, th e can didate techn o logies b e in g ev aluated for BCT var y in costs

and feasibility am ong species within a subcategor y of CAFOs

. The candidate technologies are

also not likely to be applicable across an enti re subcategory of CAFOs. For this reason, the

historical approach will provide results that are less m eani ngful for the CAFO rule. Therefore

EPA has evaluated each candidate technology based on a species-sp ecific basis (the anim al

species for which the technology is believed to be feasible) rather than based on the subcategory

as a whole. This approach elim inates the need to consider su bcatego r ies as a factor in the overall

BCT m e thodology as applied to the CAFO indus try.

EPA reviewed the POTW cost estim a te m e th odology in the 1986 FRN. Five m ode l POTW s

were established to represent fi ve different flow ranges of POTW s, as s hown in Table 15-2.

Costs were developed b y m u ltiple e ngineering fi rm s for each of the m o del POTW s. The costs

represent the construction and ope ration costs of a secondary POTW , and the total annual cost to

upgrade to advanced secondary treatm e nt (i.e., pol ym er addition). The costs include chlorination

(see 51 FR 24982, 2nd colum n, last paragraph).

Table 15-2. Model POTWs and Representa tive Flow Ranges from the 1986 FRN

Model POTW Represe n tati ve Flow Range

0. 05 2 M GD 0 - 0. 10 5 M G D

0. 38 M G D 0. 10 6 - 1. 0 5 M GD

3. 3 M G D 1. 06

- 1 0

. 5 M GD

25 MG D 10.0 - 50. 2 M GD

14 0 M GD >50

. 2 M G D



### The average m odel POTW costs were extrapol ated to represent the entire industry by

multiply ing the ave r age model POTW cost by a weighting f a ctor. The w e ighting f actors

15-6

### represent the flow range s of the m o del POTW , a nd were de term ined by dividing the amount of

POTW industry flow in each flow range by the n a tional POTW industry total flow.

Historically, the two con v entiona l po llutants us ed in calcula ting the POTW pollutant rem oval are

BOD and TSS. In the first part of the BCT cost test, the POTW upgrade cost, or POTW

benchm ark, is com p ared to the upgrade cost to industry. The POTW benchm ark from the 1986

FRN was $0.25 (1976$) per pound BOD and TSS rem ove d. EPA used cost index data from RS

Means Histo r ical Cost In dices to upd ate th is POTW benchm a r k to 2001$ accord ing to the

following equation:

Index for 2001

× Cost in 1976$

= Cost in 2001$

Index for 1976

121.8

× $0.25

= $0.65

46.9



### EPA then calculated in crem ental costs per pound of BOD and TSS re m o ved ($/lb) for each

candidate technology. T h e upgrade cost to industry m u st be less than th e POTW benchm ark of

$0.65 per pound (in 2001 dollars). If any candidate technology option passes the first part of the

BCT cost test, the technology is further ev aluated in the second part of the test.

To pass the second part of the BCT cost test, the industry cost te st, EPA com putes a ratio of two

increm ental costs. The first increm e n tal cost is the cost per pound rem o ved by the candidate

technology relative to B P T. The second increm en tal cost is the cost per pound rem o ved by BPT

rela tive to n o trea tm ent (i.e., raw was t eload )

. As in the POTW test, the r a tio of the f i rst cos t

divided by the second cost is com p ared to an industry cost benchm ark. The industry cost

benchm ark is the ratio of two increm ental cost s: the cost per pound to upgrade a POTW from

secondary treatm e nt to advanced secondary treatm e nt is divided by the cost per pound to initially

achieve secondary treatm e nt. If the industry ratio is lower than the benchm ark, then the

candidate technology passes the cost test. The industry cost be nchm ark is 1.29 (i.e., the cost

increase m u st be less than 29 percent) (see 51 FR 24974; also see the pulp and paper final rule

Technical Developm ent Docum e nt, EPA-821-R-97-011).

15.2.1.2 Data Sources Used in the BCT Cos t Test Calcu l ations

EPA evaluated num erous sources of data on CAFO m a nure managem e nt system s, including

treatm ent technologies and best m a nagem e nt prac tices (BMP s) for polluti on prevention, as well

as for the handling, storage, treatm ent, and la nd application of wastes. These data sources

include available techn i cal literatu re, ove r 11,000 comments subm itted by industry and other

public com m e nters, and insights gained from c onducting over 116 site visits to CAFOs.

For this BCT cost te st a n alysis, EP A calcula te d POTW costs and FC reductions to represent

curren t POTW perfor m a nce. EPA also calcu late d or revisited costs a nd FC reductions for lim e

treatm ent of dairy m a nure, an aerobic digestion of swine and dairy m a nure for pathogen

reduction, and com posting of poultry m a nure/litter. A variety of data sources were used in these

analyses, including EPA data from the 2004 Cl ean W a tersheds Needs Survey and Perm it

Com p liance System database, item s from th e CAFO rule docket (OW

- 2002-0025), and new

15-7

### sources relating to technology co sts and performance in the CAFO indus try. Chapter 5 discusses

how EPA ca lculated costs and loads f o r the techno logy options evaluated in the BCT cost test.

Section 15.3 presents the referenc es used for the BCT cost test.

EPA estim ated costs, baseline conventional pollutant loads, and conventional pollutant

reductions based on the Cost Methodology for the Final Re vision to the National Pollutant

Discharge E limination S y

stem Regulation and th e Efflu ent G u idelines fo r Concentrated Animal

Feeding Operations , Decem ber 2002 (i.e., “Cost Report”), and Pollutant Loading Reductions for

the Effluent Limitations Guideline s for Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations , Decem ber

2002 (i.e., “Loads Report”). In general, EPA assum e d an upper bound of 99 percent FC

reductions are ach ieved by each pro duction area technology considered. The literature suggests

such high removals are not likely to be achieve d. However, EPA notes if no technology passes

the cost test at the upper bound 99 percent FC removals, then any technology of si m ilar cost will

also not p a ss the cost test. Chapter 5 presents a d e scrip tion of each techno logy option ’ s costs and

pollutant loads.

15.2.2 Development of BCT Cost Test for FC

Although FC is not typically evaluated in the BC T cost test, EPA’s BCT m e thodology

specifically contem plated that in certain ins t ances, EPA woul d need to develop appropriate

procedures to evaluate cost-reasonableness on an industry-specific ba sis. (51 FR 24976)

Moreover, C W A Section 304(b)(4)(B ) authorizes EP A to consider other appropriate factors in

establishing BCT. Therefore, Section 15.2.2 presen ts an alternative appr oach to conducting the

cost-reasonableness test that di rectly accounts for pathogens by specifically looking at FC, the

only conventional pollutant that is a possible pathogen. The approach is identical to the two-part

cost-reasonableness test desc ribed in Section 15.2.1.1, excep t pounds of BOD and TSS are

replaced by colony forming units (C FU) of FC

. EPA’s m e thodology to perform the BCT cost

test for FC employed the following steps.

1. Calculate a POTW cost test benchmark for FC reduction ($/trillion CFU of FC re m o ved).

2. Calculate an industry cost te st benchm ark, which is the rati o of the POTW secondary to

advanced increm ental cost/unit of FC rem oved t o the POTW raw to secondary

cost/trillion CFU of FC r e m oved.

3. Obtain industry costs from regulatory options explored in the or iginal rulem a king and

calcu late ind u stry cos t s for newly ex plored tech nologies ($/trillion CFU of FC re m ove d).

4. Perform the first part of the BCT cost te st (the PO TW test) by com p aring the industry

option cost to the POTW benchm ark cost.

5. Perform the second part of the BCT cost te st (the industry cost test) by comparing the

POTW cost ratio to the candidate technology industry cost ratio.

The rem a inder of this section describes the de velopm ent of the POTW and industry benchm arks

for FC re m o val. Section 15.2.3 presents the results of the BCT cost tests.

15-8

### 15.2.2.1 Calculation of POTW Benchmark for FC

EPA developed a new benchm ark to use for the PO TW test, which estimates the cos t to reduc e

FC bacteria at a POTW

. Because the 1986 FR N costs in clud e biolog ical treatm ent and

disinf ection, EPA assumed that no a ddition a l tre a tm ent would be needed to rem ove FC, and the

costs from the 1986 FRN could be used as the st arting point for the analysis. EPA updated the

1986 FRN a nnual costs for each m odel POTW from 1976$ to 2001$, usin g the RS Means

Historical C o st Indices. (S ee Tables 15-3 and 15-4.)

EPA then calculated ann u al influe nt and effluent FC loads. EP A estim ated the FC concentration

in untreated wastewater usi ng accepted engineering design manuals, (EP A Docket OW -2005­

0037, DCNs 1-01001, 1-01002 and 1-01220). Dom e stic wastewater typica lly contains FC

concentratio ns between 1 and 10 m illion CFU/ 100m L . EPA com p ared this range of FC

concentrations with other data sources and considers this to be a good estim ate. 2 

### EPA used the

m i d-point of this range (5,000,000 CFU/ 100 m L ) as the influent FC concentration for all m odel

POTW s (secondary and advanced secondary). E P A considered using m easured POTW data

f r om EPA’s Perm it Complianc e System (PCS) data, but there were insuf f i cient d a ta re ported in

PCS for infl uent 3 

### FC concentration s at POTW s.

Secondary treatm e nt does not require FC reductions . Therefore, EPA estim a ted the final effluent

FC concentration from POTW s with secondary treatm e nt to be 200 CFU/100m L , whi c h is the

standard water quality criterion for FC accordi ng to EPA’s Ambient W a t e r Quality Criteria for

Bacteria. EPA m u ltiplied the effluent and influent FC concentrations by the annual flow at each

model POTW to calculate influent and effluent FC loads. EPA estim ated FC re m o vals by

subtracting effluent load s from influent load s for each m odel POTW

. The rem oval cost was

calculated by dividing the annual co st of operation by the trillions of CFUs rem oved. Table 15-3

shows EPA’s estim ated costs of seco ndary tr eatm e nt and FC rem oval at each m odel POTW

.

EPA estim ated costs and loads at POTW s with advanced secondary treatm e nt using the sam e

process as secondary treatm ent at POTW s, with the exception of the effluent FC concentration.

For advanced secondary POTW s, EPA used Perm it Compliance System (PCS) data to determ ine

the effluent FC concentrations that P O TW s are actually achieving. Based on the m e dian point of

all POTW s t h at report to PCS, EPA used an e ffluent FC concentrati on of 21 CFU/100 m L for

advanced secondary POTW s. Table 15-4 shows EPA’s estimated costs of advanced secondary

treatm ent and FC rem o va l at each model POTW

.

EPA determined the increm ental cost per trillion CFU re m o ved be tween secondary and advanced

secondary treatm e nt for each m odel POTW, and app lied a flow weighting factor to determ ine an

increm ental cost per trillion CF U re moved for the entire POTW industry. EPA created updated

weighting factors, following the sam e m e thodol ogy as the 1986 FRN and using the flow data

from the 2004 Clean Watersh e ds Needs Survey (C W N S). EPA divided the total flow in each

POTW size catego r y by the sum of a ll POTW flows. Table 15-5 presents the data used to

calculate the flow weighting factors.

2 Othe r FC data sources include EPA’s Mea t & Po u ltry Processin g Fina l Ru le, On site Wa stewa t er Treatmen t

S

y

stem s Ma nua l, an d S

m al l a n d Dece nt r a l i z ed W a st ew at er Ma n age me nt Syst ems (C ri t e s & Tc h oba n ogl ous ).

3 B o t h i n fl ue nt a n d ef fl ue nt dat a are nee d ed t o cal cul a t e FC r e duct i o ns

.



### 15-9

### EPA m u ltiplied the incre m ental costs for each m o de l POTW by the flow weighting factor and

summed the results to get a flow weighted cost. The resulting increm ental cost is the P O TW

benchm ark value for FC. The benchm ark was de term ined to be $0.33 per trillion CFU rem oved

(in 2001$). Table 15-6 presents these increm ental costs used to calculate the POTW benchm ark.

15-10Table 15-3.Cost of Secondary Treatment



### 15-11BCT POTWFlowRangesandModelPOTWFlows(MGD)(a)Annual CostofModelPOTW Operation(1976$)(b)Annual CostofModel POTWOperation (2001$)InfluentFCLoad(trillion CFU/year)(c)EffluentFCLoad(trillionCFU/year)(d)FC Removal(trillionCFU/year)RemovalCost($/trillionCFU)0 - 0.105 (Model=0.052)$40,000$103,8813.5923E+151.4369E+113.5922E+15$28.920.106 - 1.05(Model=0.38)$156,000$405,1342.6252E+161.0501E+122.6251E+16$15.431.06-10.5(Model=3.3)$1,351,000$3,508,5672.2798E+179.1190E+122.2797E+17$15.3910.6-50.2(Model=25)$5,456,000$14,169,3131.7271E+186.9084E+131.7270E+18$8.20> 50.2(Model=140)$20,151,000$52,332,4489.6717E+183.8687E+149.6713E+18$5.41(a)51FR24974Table2,page 24983.(b)51FR 24974Table 4,page24983.(c)BasedoninfluentFCconcentrationof5,000,000CFU/100mL.(c)BasedoneffluentFCconcentrationof200CFU/100mL.Table 15-4.Cost of Advanced Secondary TreatmentBCT POTWFlowRangesandModelPOTWFlows(MGD)Annual CostofModelPOTW Operation(1976$)Annual CostofModel POTWOperation(2001$)InfluentFCLoad(trillion CFU/year)(c)EffluentFCLoad(trillionCFU/year)(d)FC Removal(trillionCFU/year)RemovalCost($/trillionCFU)0 - 0.105 (Model=0.052)$40,000$103,8813.5923E+151.5088E+103.5923E+15$28.920.106 - 1.05(Model=0.38)$156,000$405,1342.6252E+161.1026E+112.6252E+16$15.431.06-10.5(Model=3.3)$1,398,000$3,630,6272.2798E+179.5750E+112.2797E+17$15.9310.6-50.2(Model=25)$5,696,000$14,792,5671.7271E+187.2538E+121.7271E+18$8.57> 50.2(Model=140)$20,034,000$54,625,6129.6717E+184.0621E+139.6717E+18$5.65(a)51FR24974Table2,page 24983.(b)51FR 24974Table 4,page24983.(c)BasedoninfluentFCconcentrationof5,000,000CFU/100mL.(c)BasedoneffluentFCconcentrationof21CFU/100mL.

### Table 15-5. Weighting Factors

Siz e of Model POTW

(M GD ) Represe n t a ti v e Flow Ra nge

(M GD ) To ta l Flo w for All POTWs

(M GD ) (a ) Weig hting Facto r

0. 05 2 0 - 0. 10 5 30 3 0. 00 9 1

0. 38 0. 10 6 - 1. 0 5 23 9 5 0. 07 2 0

3. 3 1. 06

- 1 0

. 5 89 8 3 0. 27 0 1

25 10 .6

- 5 0

. 2 86 4 4 0. 25 9 9

14 0 > 5 0

. 2 12 9 39 0. 38 9 0

ALL ALL 33264 1

(a) Th e to tal fl o w fo r all POTWs co lu m n reflects CWNS data.



### Table 15-6. POTW Benchmark for FC

Siz e of POT W ( M G D ) Weig hting Facto r Annual I n cre mental Cos t

per Trillio n CFUs Remov e d fro m Seco nda r y

Treatme n t to Advanced Sec o nd ar y Tre a tment

0. 05 2 0. 00 9 1 $0 .0 0

0. 38 0. 07 2 0 $0 .0 0

3. 3 0. 27 0 1 $0 .5 3

25 0. 25 9 9 $0 .3 6

14 0 0. 38 9 0 $0 .2 4

Flow-weighte d In creme ntal Cost ($/trillion CFU): $0 .3 3



### 15.2.2.2 Calculation of Industry Benchmark for FC

The second test that the candidate BCT technology m u st pass to be consider ed cost-reasonable is

the industry cost test. As desc ribed previously, to pass the indu stry cost test, EPA computes a

ratio of two increm ental costs. In the alte rnative cost test, the FC reductions are used in lieu of

pounds TSS and BOD. The first increm ental cost is therefore the cost per CFU re m o ved by the

candidate technology relative to BPT. The second increm ental cost is the cost per CF U rem oved

by BPT relative to no treatm ent (i.e ., raw wasteload). The industry cost benchm ark is the ratio of

two increm ental costs: the cost per CFU to upgrade a POTW from secondary treatm e nt to

advanced secondary treatm ent (the POTW benchm ar k) is divided by the cost per CFU to initially

achieve secondary treatm e nt. If the industry ratio is lower than the benchm ark, then the

candidate technology passe s the cost test.

The cost per CFU to initially achieve secondary treatm e nt is presented for each m odel POTW in

Table 15-4. Table 15-7 presents the flow-weighted cost of sec ondary treatm e nt for the entire

POTW industry.

15-12

### Table 15-7. Flow –w eighted Cost of Secondary Treatment

Siz e of

POTW

(M GD ) Up gra d e Cos t fr om Raw

Was t e to Sec o ndar y

($ /trillio n CFU) Up gra d e Cos t fr om

Secon d ar y t o Ad va nced

(Increme ntal $/trillion

CFU ) Cos t

Ra tio Weig hting

Factor Weigh t ed

Ra tio

0 - 0. 10 5 $2 8. 9 2 $0 .0 0 0. 00 0 0 0. 00 9 0 0. 00

0. 10 6 - 1. 0 5 $1 5. 4 3 $0 .0 0 0. 00 0 0 0. 07 1 2 0. 00

1. 06

- 1 0

. 5 $1 5. 3 9 $0 .5 3 0. 03 4 8 0. 26 7 7 0. 01

10 .6

- 5 0

. 2 $8 .2 0 $0 .3 6 0. 04 4 0 0. 26 1 9 0. 01

> 5 0

. 2 $5 .4 1 $0 .2 4 0. 04 3 8 0. 39 0 1 0. 02

Flow-weigh te d Ind u str y Cost Bench m ar k : 0. 04



### The cost ratio is calculated for each PO TW size using the following equation:

Co st p e r trillion CFU t o u p g r ad e to seco nd ary treatm e n t to ad v a n c ed secon d a ry treatm e n t

Co st p e r trillion CFU t o in itially ach iev e seco nd ary treatm e n t



### The cost ratio for each POTW size is m u ltiplied b y a flow weighting facto r and the we ighted

ratios are summed to determ ine the flow-weighted industry cost benchm ark. For this BCT cost

test, the industry cost benchm ark is 0.04.

15.2.3 Results of B C T Cost Te st

EPA identified several technology options that po tentially provide additional control of som e

conventional pollutants beyond that provided by BPT. (See Chapter 5 for m o re details.) From

these technology options, EPA identi fied five options that are tec hnologically feasib le at CAFOs:

y Groundwater controls (O ption 3);

y No discharge (Option 5);

y Com posting (Option 5A);

y Anaerobic digestion (Option 6); and

y Land application tim ing rest rictions (Option 7).

In the BCT cost test, EP A evaluates various cand idate techno logies to ass e ss whether they are

“practical” (technologically feasible for all facilities in a s ubcategory) and would achieve greater

reductions of FC than the technologies selected as the basis for BPT in the 2003 rule. EPA finds

that none of these candidate technologies w ould pass both parts of the BCT cost test.

This section provides the result s of EPA’s BCT c o st-reasonablene ss test for these options. EPA

evaluated cost reasonableness for both BOD and TSS re m ovals (the traditional cost

reasonableness test, see Section 15.2.3.1), as well as FC removals (alternative cost

reasonableness test, see Section 15.2.3.2).

15.2.3.1 BCT Cost Test for BOD and TSS Removals

In the trad itional BCT cost tes t eva l u a tion of BOD and TSS, EPA calculated increm ental

industry costs for all candidate BCT technologies com p ared to the BCT option. Table 15-8

15-13

### provides a summ ary of t h e cost s and BOD and TSS reductions of the 2003 CAFO rule BPT.

Pollutant removals were determ ined using th e 2003 final CAFO rule m e thodology, as described

in Section 8.6.3. Table 15-9 provides increm enta l costs and increm ental pollutant removals of

candidate technologies in relati on to BPT. Increm ental costs are the costs of the technology

option m i nus the BPT costs from Ta ble 15-8. In crem ental lo ad reduction s are th e pou nds

rem oved by the technology option m i nus the BPT load reductions from Ta ble 15-8. T o tal

increm ental reductions include the summ ation of BOD and TSS re m ovals. EPA has evaluated

the cand i date techno logies on a species-specific b a sis rather than on a subcategory wide basis.

Table 15-8. 2003 CAFO Rule BPT Costs and BOD & TSS Removals

Sector Annualiz ed costs

($20 01 , millio ns,

pre-tax) BOD rem oved

(millio n po unds) TSS rem ove d

(millio n po unds

sediment) Total p o un ds

removed (million

pou nds )

B eef 86 0 12 0 1 12 0 1

Dai r y 12 8 0 99 99

Swi n e 25 0 11 3 11 3

Po ul t r y 41 6 18 1 18 7



### Table 15-9. Incremental Costs an d BOD & T SS Removals of Candidate Technologies

Candid a te

Technol o gy Animal

Sector Annua lized Co sts

of Candid a te

Technol o gy

Opti on

($20 01 , millio ns,

pre-tax) Incremental

Cos t s

( $20 01

, millio ns, pre

ta x) Incremental

BOD

Rem ove d

(millio n

pou nds ) Incremental

TSS Re moved

(millio n

pou nds

sediment) To ta l

Incremental

Reduc tions

(millio n

pou nds )

Gr ou n d water

C ont r o l s a B eef 23 1 14 5 NC (a ) NC NC

Dai r y 31 6 18 8 NC NC NC

Swi n e 61 36 NC NC NC

No Di sc har g e Swi n e 13 3 10 8 7 0 7

C o m post i ng B eef 1, 36 7 12 8 1 3 25 28

Dai r y 27 7 14 9 1 7 8

Po ul t r y 50 8 46 7 0 ND (b) ND

Anae robic

Di gest i o n Dai r y 50 5 37 7 2 9 11

Swi n e 79 54 6 0. 5 7

Land

App licatio n

Tim i ng

R e st ri ct i ons B eef 11 2 26 0. 01 0. 06 0. 08

Dai r y 31 8 19 0 2 7 9

Swi n e 37 12 7 1 8

(a) NC Values were not calculated b e cause no additiona l po llutant removal was e xpect ed for thes e opt ions

. (b) ND - Valu es were non- zero

, b u t too sma ll to r e port in the ind i cated un its



### The POTW upgrade cost is referred to as the POTW benchmark; its derivati on is described in the

1986 final BCT m e thodology notice (51 FR 24974). The upgrade cost to industry m u st be less

than the PO TW benchmark of $0.25 per pound (in 1976 dollars) or $0.65 per pound (in 2001

15-14

### dollars). Table 15-10 provides the cost per pound of conventional pollutants (BOD and TSS)

rem oved by the candidate technology and the results of the first part of the BCT cost test.

Table 15-10. BOD & TSS Cost Test Part One - POTW Test Results

Candid a te Te chnol o gy Animal Sector Incremental c o st per pound

removed by te chnol o gy

($ /lb) POTW Test Result

Gr ou n d water cont rols Beef NC (a ) Fail

Dairy NC Fail

Swin e NC Fail

No di sc har g e Swi n e 13 .5 5 Fai l

C o m post i ng B eef 46 .3 9 Fai l

Dairy 1 7 .84 Fail

Pou ltry NC Fail

Anae r obi c Di g e st i on Dairy 3 4 .15 Fail

Swi n e 7. 89 Fai l

Land App licatio n Tim i n g Restrictio n s B eef 36 6. 6 5 Fai l

Dairy 2 0 .90 Fail

Swi n e 1. 55 Fai l

(a) NC Val u es were n o t calculated b ecau s e no ad d ition a l B O D or TSS rem o v a l was ex pected fo r th ese o p tion s

.



### In all cases, the POTW benchm ark is lower than the cost per pound of conventional pollutants

rem oved by the candidate technology. Since the candidate technologies all fail the P O TW cost

test, the candidate technologies are not cost-reasonable. EPA notes even though a candidate

technology m a y be affor d able for a subcategory, the candidate technologies m u st be costreasonable to be further consid ered as a basis for BCT.

EPA believes that since all candidate technolog ie s fail the PO TW test for each species evaluated,

any technology option developed for subcategories C or D utilizing a combination of these

candidate technologies also fails the POTW test. For exam ple, for subcategory C CAFOs (beef

and dairy facilities), no technology op tion passes the cost test for e ither beef or dairy operations,

therefore no com b ination of technology options ca n be constructed for subcategory C (beef and

dairy f acilities) tha t will pass the co st test.

EPA is applying the results presented here for da iry, swine, and poultry oper ations to veal calf

f acilities b e c a use they ar e typic a lly total conf in em ent operations with sim ilar waste m a nagem e nt

system s. Sim ilarly, the results for b eef cattle op erations m a y be applied to heifer operations

which use waste m a nagem e nt technologies identical to those used by beef feedlots. E P A notes

veal calf and heifer operati ons reflect approxim a tely 2 pe rc ent of all Large CAFOs.

The second test that the candidate BCT technology m u st pass to be consider ed cost-reasonable is

the industry cost test. (See S ection 15.2.1.1.) The industry cost benchm ark is 1.29 (i.e., the cost

increase m u st be less than 29 percent) (see 51 FR 24974; also see the pulp and paper final rule

Technical Developm ent Docum e nt, EPA-821-R-97- 011). Table 15-11 shows the ratio of the

15-15

### increm ental costs for the candida te technology options and the resu lts of the second part of the

BCT cost test.

Table 15-11. BOD & TSS Cost Test Part Tw o – Industry Cost Test Results

Candid a te Te chnol o gy Animal Sector Candid a te

Technol o gy Cost

Ra tio Indus try Cos t

Benchmar k Indus try Cos t

Test Result

Gr ou n d water cont rols B eef NC (a ) 1. 29 Fai l

Dai r y NC 1. 29 Fai l

Swi n e NC 1. 29 Fai l

No di sc har g e Swi n e 61 .1 5 1. 29 Fai l

C o m post i ng B eef 64 7. 7 0 1. 29 Fai l

Dai r y 13 .8 6 1. 29 Fai l

Po ul t r y NC 1. 29 Fai l

Anae r obi c di ge st i on Dai r y 26 .5 2 1. 29 Fai l

Swi n e 35 .6 3 1. 29 Fai l

Land App licatio n Tim i n g

R e st ri ct i ons B eef 5, 11 9. 5 2 1. 29 Fai l

Dai r y 16 .2 3 1. 29 Fai l

Swi n e 6. 99 1. 29 Fai l

(a) NC—Valu e s were n o t calcu lated b ecau s e n o add itio na l po llu tan t rem o v a l was exp ected for th ese o p t i o n s

.



### In all cases, the industry cost ratio is higher than the industr y cost benchm ark. Even if a

candidate technology was to pass the POTW cos t test, none of the candidate technologies pass

the industry cost test. E P A believes that since all candidate technologies fail the industry cost

test for each species evalua ted, any technology option develope d for subcategories C or D

utilizing a c o m b ination of these can didate techn o logies also f a ils the industry cost test.

15.2.3.2 BCT Cost Test for FC Removals

In the alternative BCT cost test for FC, EP A calculated increm ental industry costs for all

candidate BCT technologies com p ared to the BC T option. T a ble 15-12 presents the costs and

FC re m ovals of the 2003 CAFO rul e (BPT). Table 15-13 provides increm ental costs and

increm ental FC re m ovals of candidate technologi es in relation to BPT. FC rem ovals were

determ ined using the 2003 final CAFO rule m e t hodology. In this alterna tive analysis, EPA has

again evaluated the candidate technologies on a species-specific basis rather than on a

subcategory basis.

15-16

### Table 15-12. 2003 CAFO Rule BPT Costs and FC Removals

Sector Annualiz ed costs

($20 01 , millio ns, pre-tax ) FC Rem ove d

(millio n CFU)

B eef 86 10 .5 6 × 1 0 13

Dai r y 12 8 0. 97 × 10 13

Swi n e 25 0. 42 × 10 13

Po ul t r y ( w et a n d d r y ) 41 6. 74 × 10 13



### Table 15-13. Incremen tal Costs an d FC Removals of Candidate Technologies

Candid a te Te chnol o gy Animal Sector Incremental Annualiz ed

Co st ($20 01 , millio ns,

pre-tax) Incremental F C

Remo v e d (millio n

CFU )

Gr ou n d water cont rols a B eef 14 5 NC (a )

Dai r y 18 8 NC

Swi n e 36 NC

No di sc har g e Swi n e 10 8 13 7. 4 x 10 13

C o m post i ng B eef 12 8 1 24 9. 9 x 1 0 13

Dai r y 14 9 30 .4 x 1 0 13

Po ul t r y 46 7 0. 46 0 x 1 0 13

Anae r obi c di ge st i on Dai r y 37 7 33 .3 x 1 0 13

Swi n e 54 17 0. 3 x 10 13

Land App licatio n Tim i n g Restrictio n s B eef 26 0. 55 7 x 1 0 13

Dai r y 19 0 22 .9 x 1 0 13

Swi n e 12 13 6. 1 x 1 0 13

(a) NC Values were not calculated b e cause no additiona l po llutant removal was e xpect ed for thes e opt ions

.



### EPA developed a new benchm ark to use for this alte rnative P O TW test, which ref l ec ts the cost to

reduce FC at a POTW

. The re sulting increm ental cost pe r trillion CFU rem oved was $0.33

($2001). Table 15-14 shows the POTW test resu lt using the alternativ e P O TW benchm ark for

conducting part one of the co st-reasonableness test.

15-17

### Table 15-14. Alternative Cost Test Part One - POTW Test Results

Candid a te Te chnol o gy Animal Sector Co st per trilli o n CFU

removed by te chnol o gy POTW Test Result

Gr ou n d water cont rols Beef NC Fail

Dairy NC Fail

Swin e NC Fail

No di sc har g e Swi n e 1. 46 Fai l

C o m post i ng B eef 0. 51 Fai l

Dai r y 0. 49 Fai l

Pou ltry 1 0 1

. 44 Fail

Anae r obi c di ge st i on Dai r y 1. 64 Fai l

Swi n e 0. 04 Pass

Land App licatio n Tim i n g Restrictio n s B eef 4. 58 Fai l

Dai r y 0. 83 Fai l

Swi n e 0. 01 Pass



### In som e cases, the alternate POTW benchm ark is lower than the cost per pound of conventional

pollutants removed by the candidate technology. In these cases, EPA believes the candidate

technologies fail the alternate POTW test. Th e rem a ining candidate technologies pass the

POTW test and m ove on to the second cost test.

The second test that the candidate BCT technology m u st pass to be consider ed cost-reasonable is

the industry cost test. As desc ribed previously, to pass the indu stry cost test, EPA computes a

ratio of two increm ental costs. In the alte rnative cost test, the FC reductions are used in lieu of

pounds TSS and BOD. The first increm ental cost is therefore the cost per CFU re m o ved by the

candidate technology relative to BPT. The second increm ental cost is the cost per CF U rem oved

by BPT relative to no treatm ent (i.e ., raw wasteload). The industry cost benchm ark is the ratio of

two increm ental costs: the cost per CFU to upgrade a POTW from secondary treatm e nt to

advanced secondary treatm ent is divided by the cost per CFU to initia lly achieve secondary

treatm ent. If the industry ra tio is lower than the benchm ar k, then the candidate technology

passes the cost test. The indus try cost benchm ark is 0.04. Tabl e 15-15 shows the ratio of the

increm ental costs for the candida te technology options and the resu lts of the second part of the

BCT cost test.

Table 15-15. Alternative Cost Test Pa rt Tw o – Industry Cost Test Results

Candid a te Te chnol o gy Animal Sector Candid a te

Technol o gy Cost

Ra tio Indus try Cos t

Benchmar k Indus try Cos t

Test Result

Anae r obi c di ge st i on Swi n e 6. 63 0. 04 Fai l

Land App licatio n Tim i n g

R e st ri ct i ons Swi n e 1. 48 0. 04 Fai l



### All candidate technologies passing th e POTW test f a il th e ind u stry cos t te st. In a ll c a s e s, the

industry cost ratio is several orders of m a gnit ude higher than the industry cost benchm ark. As

discussed in 4.1.2, EPA a ssum e d 99 percent FC reductions were achie ved by any candidate

15-18

### production area technology. Lower FC reductions result in higher indus try cost ratios, and

would result in failing the industr y cost test by an even higher m a rgin. Since all candidate

technologies fail the cost-reasonableness test fo r each species evaluate d, any technology option

developed f o r subcategories C or D utilizing a c o m b ination of thes e can didate techn o logies also

f a ils the cost test.

15.3 References

Baker, Jam e s C. Design Criteria for Swine W a ste Flushing S y stem s. March 1996. Available

online a t

http://www5.bae.ncsu.edu/program s/exte nsion/publicat/wqwm / ebae080_81.htm l

. EPA

Docket OW-2005-0037, DCN 1-01216.

Crites and Tchobanoglous, Eds. Small and Decentralized Wast ewater Management Systems

. (McGraw-H ill), 1998. EPA Docket OW -2005-0037, DCN 1-01001.

Great Lakes-Upper Mississippi Ri ver Board of State and Prov incial Public Health and

Environm ental Managers. Recommended Standards for Wastewater Facilities (i.e., TenState Standards), 2004 E d ition. EP A Docket OW-2005-0037, DCN 1-01220.

Metcalf and Eddy, Inc. Wastewater Engineering (3rd Edition), 1991. EPA Docket OW -2005­

0037, DCN 1-01002.

Moffitt, David, C., et. al. Evaluating the De sign and Managem e nt of Waste Storage P onds

Receiving L o t Runoff. Presented at the ASAE International Meeting 200 3 in Las Vegas,

Nevada. ASAE paper number 034129. July, 2003. EPA Doc k et OW -2005-0037, DCN

1-01223.

Moffitt, David, C. and Wilson, Bruce. Evaluati ng the Design and Managem e nt of Waste Storage

Ponds-Part II. Presented at the 2004 ASAE /CSAE Annual Interna tional Meeting 2004,

Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. ASAE paper num ber 044072. 2004. EPA Doc k et OW -2005­

0037, DCN 1-01224.

NRCS Cons ervation Practice Standard (313) W a st e Storage Facility. October 2003. Available

online at ftp://ftp-fc.sc.egov.usda.gov/NHQ/pr actice-standards/standards/313.doc. EPA

Docket OW-2005-0037, DCN 1-01217

R.S. Means. Mossm an, Melville (Ed

. ). Mechanical Cost Data: 24 th 

### Annual Edition (p. 577),

2001. EPA Docket OW-2005-0037, DCN 1-01003

U.S. Departm e nt of Agr i culture. A SPAW Evaluation of F i ve AWM Designed Swine Manure

Storage Facilities

. EPA Docket OW-2005-0037, DCN 1-01225.

U.S. Departm e nt of Agr i culture. Case Studies on AWM and SPAW

. EPA Docket OW -2005­

0037, DCN 1-01226.

15-19

### U.S. Departm e nt of Agr i culture Natural Resources Conservati on Serv ice (NRCS). Agricultural

Waste Management Field Handbook

. National E ngineering Handbook Part 651. June

1999. Available online at http ://www.wcc.nrcs.usda.gov/awm.

U.S. Departm e nt of Agr i culture Natural Res ources Conservation Serv ice (NRCS). Anim al

Waste Managem e nt (AWM). NRCS design tool that is based on the design procedures in

the NRCS Anim al W a ste Managem e nt Field Handbook. Available online at

http://www.wcc.nrcs.usda.gov/awm/awm .ht m l

. EPA Docket OW -2005-0037, DCN 1

­

01196.

USEPA. Ambient W a t e r Quality Criteria for Bacteria (EPA 440/5-84-002). January 1986. EPA

Docket OW-2005-0037, DCN 1-01004.

USEPA. BCT Benchmarks: Methodology, Analys is, and R e sults. May 1986. EPA Docket OW2005-0037, DCN 1-01014.

USEPA. Clean W a tersheds Needs Su rvey. 2004. EPA Docket OW -2005-0037,

DCN 1-01005A1.

USEPA. Cost Methodology for the Fi nal Revisions to the N a tional Pollutant Discharge

Elimination System Regu lation and th e Efflu en t G u idelines fo r Concentrated Animal

Feeding Operations (EPA-821-R-03-004). December 2002.

USEPA. Meat & Poultry Processing Final Ru le, Technical D evelopment Document (EPA-821­

R-04-011), Table 6-3. July 2004. Available online at

http://www.epa.gov/guide/m pp/tdd/vol1.pdf.

USEPA. M anaging Manure Nutrients at Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (EPA-821­

B-04-009). Decem ber 2004.

USEPA. Onsite Wastewater Treatment System s Manual (E PA-625-R-00-008). February 2002.

EPA Docket OW -2005-0037, DCN 1-01006

USEPA. Permit Compliance System

. Available online at

http://www.epa.gov/enviro/htm l/pcs/�pcs_query_java.htm l

. EPA Docket OW -2005­

0037, DCN 1-01005A1.

USEPA. Pollutan t Load ing Reductio n s for the E f fluen t Limitations Guid eline s for C oncentra t ed

Animal Feeding Operations (EPA-8 21-R-03-00 7). Decem ber 2002.

USEPA. Pulp and Paper Rulemaking, Technical Support Document . (EPA-821-R-97-011).

October 1997.

15-20

### Appendix A

M ODEL 

### F AR M 

### R E S ULTS FOR 

### M ODIF IED 

### O PT I O N 

### 6 FOR 

### S WINETable A-1.Model Farm Results for ModifiedOption 6 for Swine



### A-20OptionAnimalFarmTypeManureTypeSizeClassRegionCategoryPerformanceNeedsNumberofFacilitiesCapitalCostsFixedCostsAnnualO&M Costs3-YearRecurringO&MCosts5-YearRecurringO&MCosts6SwineEvaporFFLarge2CE1H3.1$526,268$8,783$34,795$387$5,8076SwineEvaporFFLarge1CE1H4.3$295,703$7,408$33,227$218$3,2806SwinePitFFLarge2MA1H1.8$461,407$8,052$28,345$422$6,3246SwinePitFFLarge1MA1H2.5$229,107$5,647$22,647$216$3,2476SwineLiquidFFLarge2MA1H5.6$1,126,858$21,636$87,671$1,084$16,2606SwineLiquidFFLarge1MA1H7.8$567,108$16,002$70,459$570$8,5146SwinePitFFLarge2MW1H25.0$5,594,708$84,367$306,328$4,026$60,3676SwinePitFFLarge1MW1H34.8$3,549,031$73,412$295,955$2,674$40,0046SwineLiquidFFLarge2MW1H19.3$3,826,609$61,008$236,469$2,835$42,4806SwineLiquidFFLarge1MW1H26.9$2,443,068$54,324$228,926$1,909$28,5006SwineEvaporGFLarge2CE1H3.2$519,232$9,066$41,939$399$5,9946SwineEvaporGFLarge1CE1H4.4$289,629$7,580$37,247$223$3,3566SwinePitGFLarge2MA1H2.8$673,250$12,525$51,346$657$9,8376SwinePitGFLarge1MA1H3.9$335,727$8,810$38,864$336$5,0666SwineLiquidGFLarge2MA1H4.7$890,941$18,159$85,634$910$13,6476SwineLiquidGFLarge1MA1H6.6$452,934$13,540$65,540$482$7,2046SwinePitGFLarge2MW1H32.1$7,094,895$108,328$446,151$5,169$77,5126SwinePitGFLarge1MW1H44.7$4,503,298$94,297$413,121$3,435$51,3856SwineLiquidGFLarge2MW1H13.3$2,706,030$42,042$184,784$1,954$29,2746SwineLiquidGFLarge1MW1H18.5$1,723,222$37,361$171,049$1,313$19,6016SwineEvaporFFLarge2CE2H7.0$1,909,420$26,010$103,521$1,287$19,2906SwineEvaporFFLarge1CE2H9.7$907,645$18,239$83,258$593$8,9271Table A-1 (Continued)



### A-2OptionAnimalFarmTypeManureTypeSizeClassRegionCategoryPerformanceNeedsNumberofFacilitiesCapitalCostsFixedCostsAnnualO&M Costs3-YearRecurringO&MCosts5-YearRecurringO&MCosts6SwinePitFFLarge2MA2H10.3$4,485,065$31,167$981,905$1,419$21,2796SwinePitFFLarge1MA2H14.3$2,108,966$23,601$507,374$652$9,8736SwineLiquidFFLarge2MA2H32.7$11,633,933$98,949$755,468$4,505$512,9876SwineLiquidFFLarge1MA2H45.6$5,611,505$75,260$519,632$2,079$238,9636SwinePitFFLarge2MW2H24.9$9,717,679$118,333$696,738$6,290$94,4296SwinePitFFLarge1MW2H34.7$4,220,445$75,164$422,261$2,788$41,8526SwineLiquidFFLarge2MW2H19.2$6,857,692$91,245$338,035$4,850$200,8006SwineLiquidFFLarge1MW2H26.8$3,042,013$58,052$247,064$2,154$86,6006SwineEvaporGFLarge2CE2H7.2$1,876,410$26,753$128,433$1,324$19,8416SwineEvaporGFLarge1CE2H10.0$895,090$18,803$96,020$612$9,2036SwinePitGFLarge2MA2H16.5$6,737,094$49,928$1,669,864$2,273$34,0886SwinePitGFLarge1MA2H23.0$3,183,561$37,960$861,178$1,048$15,8806SwineLiquidGFLarge2MA2H27.5$9,236,237$83,214$755,753$3,788$431,4116SwineLiquidGFLarge1MA2H38.4$4,470,018$63,376$493,757$1,750$201,2326SwinePitGFLarge2MW2H32.0$12,333,453$152,075$1,028,622$8,083$121,3556SwinePitGFLarge1MW2H44.6$5,358,333$96,609$600,046$3,584$53,7936SwineLiquidGFLarge2MW2H13.2$4,834,862$62,731$270,402$3,334$138,0506SwineLiquidGFLarge1MW2H18.5$2,151,490$40,073$186,860$1,487$59,7806SwineEvaporFFLarge2CE3H4.0$3,648,880$-$147,196$-$-6SwineEvaporFFLarge1CE3H5.5$733,749$-$54,751$-$-6SwinePitFFLarge2MA3H3.0$1,517,530$-$368,816$-$-6SwinePitFFLarge1MA3H4.2$637,081$-$169,077$-$-6SwineLiquidFFLarge2MA3H9.6$3,797,478$-$245,813$-$165,231Table A-1 (Continued)



### A-3OptionAnimalFarmTypeManureTypeSizeClassRegionCategoryPerformanceNeedsNumberofFacilitiesCapitalCostsFixedCostsAnnualO&M Costs3-YearRecurringO&MCosts5-YearRecurringO&MCosts6SwineLiquidFFLarge1MA3H13.3$1,589,050$-$152,108$-$67,7986SwinePitFFLarge2MW3H20.9$13,908,052$-$1,383,458$-$-6SwinePitFFLarge1MW3H29.1$5,251,387$-$632,748$-$-6SwineLiquidFFLarge2MW3H16.1$9,456,666$-$414,027$-$308,7536SwineLiquidFFLarge1MW3H22.5$3,600,023$-$245,328$-$115,6556SwineEvaporGFLarge2CE3H4.1$3,571,413$-$193,171$-$-6SwineEvaporGFLarge1CE3H5.7$726,881$-$65,154$-$-6SwinePitGFLarge2MA3H4.8$2,276,425$-$614,825$-$-6SwinePitGFLarge1MA3H6.7$953,577$-$279,943$-$-6SwineLiquidGFLarge2MA3H8.1$3,016,338$-$248,696$-$139,4146SwineLiquidGFLarge1MA3H11.2$1,261,200$-$145,010$-$57,0936SwinePitGFLarge2MW3H26.8$17,611,766$-$1,906,487$-$-6SwinePitGFLarge1MW3H37.4$6,665,873$-$862,845$-$-6SwineLiquidGFLarge2MW3H11.1$6,692,901$-$340,171$-$212,8676SwineLiquidGFLarge1MW3H15.5$2,544,888$-$189,514$-$79,6736SwineEvaporFFLarge2CE1L3.1$520,421$-$33,505$310$-6SwineEvaporFFLarge1CE1L4.3$289,699$-$31,564$174$-6SwinePitFFLarge2MA1L1.8$460,262$-$27,588$337$-6SwinePitFFLarge1MA1L2.5$227,683$-$21,697$173$-6SwineLiquidFFLarge2MA1L5.6$1,116,502$-$85,244$867$-6SwineLiquidFFLarge1MA1L7.8$556,683$-$67,410$451$-6SwinePitFFLarge2MW1L25.0$5,579,646$-$296,319$3,222$-6SwinePitFFLarge1MW1L34.8$3,529,388$-$282,856$2,142$-Table A-1 (Continued)



### A-4OptionAnimalFarmTypeManureTypeSizeClassRegionCategoryPerformanceNeedsNumberofFacilitiesCapitalCostsFixedCostsAnnualO&M Costs3-YearRecurringO&MCosts5-YearRecurringO&MCosts6SwineLiquidFFLarge2MW1L19.3$3,794,309$-$228,412$2,271$-6SwineLiquidFFLarge1MW1L26.9$2,407,573$-$218,429$1,529$-6SwineEvaporGFLarge2CE1L3.2$513,196$-$40,607$320$-6SwineEvaporGFLarge1CE1L4.4$283,485$-$35,545$178$-6SwinePitGFLarge2MA1L2.8$671,469$-$50,168$524$-6SwinePitGFLarge1MA1L3.9$333,506$-$37,382$271$-6SwineLiquidGFLarge2MA1L4.7$882,249$-$83,597$728$-6SwineLiquidGFLarge1MA1L6.6$444,113$-$62,960$381$-6SwinePitGFLarge2MW1L32.1$7,075,555$-$433,298$4,137$-6SwinePitGFLarge1MW1L44.7$4,478,068$-$396,296$2,751$-6SwineLiquidGFLarge2MW1L13.3$2,683,772$-$179,232$1,565$-6SwineLiquidGFLarge1MW1L18.5$1,698,811$-$163,830$1,052$-6SwineEvaporFFLarge2CE2L7.0$1,893,694$-$100,448$1,029$-6SwineEvaporFFLarge1CE2L9.7$892,754$-$79,457$474$-6SwinePitFFLarge2MA2L10.3$4,478,968$-$972,421$1,134$-6SwinePitFFLarge1MA2L14.3$2,101,096$-$499,589$523$-6SwineLiquidFFLarge2MA2L32.7$11,649,550$-$743,285$3,601$441,1676SwineLiquidFFLarge1MA2L45.6$5,615,828$-$503,445$1,669$205,5036SwinePitFFLarge2MW2L24.9$9,701,644$-$686,129$5,043$-6SwinePitFFLarge1MW2L34.7$4,200,794$-$409,158$2,217$-6SwineLiquidFFLarge2MW2L19.2$6,863,569$-$330,227$3,889$127,9876SwineLiquidFFLarge1MW2L26.8$3,040,848$-$237,223$1,712$54,2556SwineEvaporGFLarge2CE2L7.2$1,860,236$-$125,273$1,058$-Table A-1 (Continued)



### A-5OptionAnimalFarmTypeManureTypeSizeClassRegionCategoryPerformanceNeedsNumberofFacilitiesCapitalCostsFixedCostsAnnualO&M Costs3-YearRecurringO&MCosts5-YearRecurringO&MCosts6SwineEvaporGFLarge1CE2L10.0$879,738$-$92,101$489$-6SwinePitGFLarge2MA2L16.5$6,727,328$-$1,654,672$1,817$-6SwinePitGFLarge1MA2L23.0$3,170,904$-$848,658$842$-6SwineLiquidGFLarge2MA2L27.5$9,249,370$-$745,507$3,029$371,0126SwineLiquidGFLarge1MA2L38.4$4,473,658$-$480,126$1,405$173,0556SwinePitGFLarge2MW2L32.0$12,312,846$-$1,015,012$6,482$-6SwinePitGFLarge1MW2L44.6$5,333,075$-$583,204$2,849$-6SwineLiquidGFLarge2MW2L13.2$4,838,903$-$265,034$2,674$87,9916SwineLiquidGFLarge1MW2L18.5$2,150,686$-$180,067$1,182$37,4526SwineEvaporFFLarge2CE3L4.0$3,636,998$-$145,548$-$-6SwineEvaporFFLarge1CE3L5.5$727,199$-$52,678$-$-6SwinePitFFLarge2MA3L3.0$1,517,440$-$367,754$-$-6SwinePitFFLarge1MA3L4.2$636,955$-$167,590$-$-6SwineLiquidFFLarge2MA3L9.6$3,780,947$-$242,098$-$165,2316SwineLiquidFFLarge1MA3L13.3$1,575,723$-$147,147$-$67,7986SwinePitFFLarge2MW3L20.9$13,907,425$-$1,376,059$-$-6SwinePitFFLarge1MW3L29.1$5,250,514$-$622,446$-$-6SwineLiquidFFLarge2MW3L16.1$9,427,416$-$407,757$-$308,7536SwineLiquidFFLarge1MW3L22.5$3,577,320$-$236,935$-$115,6556SwineEvaporGFLarge2CE3L4.1$3,559,234$-$191,482$-$-6SwineEvaporGFLarge1CE3L5.7$720,093$-$63,005$-$-6SwinePitGFLarge2MA3L4.8$2,276,281$-$613,126$-$-6SwinePitGFLarge1MA3L6.7$953,376$-$277,571$-$-Table A-1 (Continued)



### A-6OptionAnimalFarmTypeManureTypeSizeClassRegionCategoryPerformanceNeedsNumberofFacilitiesCapitalCostsFixedCostsAnnualO&M Costs3-YearRecurringO&MCosts5-YearRecurringO&MCosts6SwineLiquidGFLarge2MA3L8.1$3,002,390$-$245,561$-$139,4146SwineLiquidGFLarge1MA3L11.2$1,249,977$-$140,833$-$57,0936SwinePitGFLarge2MW3L26.8$17,610,962$-$1,897,000$-$-6SwinePitGFLarge1MW3L37.4$6,664,751$-$849,605$-$-6SwineLiquidGFLarge2MW3L11.1$6,672,735$-$335,849$-$212,8676SwineLiquidGFLarge1MW3L15.5$2,529,248$-$183,732$-$79,6736SwineEvaporFFLarge2CE1M6.2$1,045,073$9,874$68,591$695$6,5286SwineEvaporFFLarge1CE1M8.6$583,303$8,326$65,278$394$3,6886SwinePitFFLarge2MA1M3.5$895,070$1,754$54,490$738$1,3766SwinePitFFLarge1MA1M4.9$446,421$1,238$43,712$382$7146SwineLiquidFFLarge2MA1M11.2$2,240,265$4,851$173,330$1,955$3,6416SwineLiquidFFLarge1MA1M15.6$1,119,911$3,579$138,717$1,022$1,9106SwinePitFFLarge2MW1M50.0$11,160,942$94,844$604,737$7,258$67,8446SwinePitFFLarge1MW1M69.6$7,061,074$82,539$582,556$4,795$44,9556SwineLiquidFFLarge2MW1M38.6$7,610,651$68,585$466,574$5,103$47,7416SwineLiquidFFLarge1MW1M53.8$4,837,258$61,078$450,254$3,422$32,0266SwineEvaporGFLarge2CE1M6.3$1,014,654$10,033$81,551$707$6,6336SwineEvaporGFLarge1CE1M8.9$577,453$8,616$74,124$408$3,8166SwinePitGFLarge2MA1M5.7$1,367,107$2,857$103,508$1,202$2,2416SwinePitGFLarge1MA1M7.9$675,824$1,996$77,634$616$1,1506SwineLiquidGFLarge2MA1M9.4$1,770,593$4,071$169,579$1,641$3,0566SwineLiquidGFLarge1MA1M13.1$886,993$3,005$128,238$858$1,6046SwinePitGFLarge2MW1M64.1$14,131,183$121,590$880,759$9,304$86,976Table A-1 (Continued)



### A-7OptionAnimalFarmTypeManureTypeSizeClassRegionCategoryPerformanceNeedsNumberofFacilitiesCapitalCostsFixedCostsAnnualO&M Costs3-YearRecurringO&MCosts5-YearRecurringO&MCosts6SwinePitGFLarge1MW1M89.4$8,959,085$106,020$814,228$6,160$57,7446SwineLiquidGFLarge2MW1M26.6$5,382,726$47,263$365,182$3,517$32,8996SwineLiquidGFLarge1MW1M37.1$3,422,054$42,119$337,784$2,360$22,0856SwineEvaporFFLarge2CE2M14.0$3,799,281$29,234$204,514$2,312$21,6836SwineEvaporFFLarge1CE2M19.5$1,804,878$20,608$164,635$1,073$10,0906SwinePitFFLarge2MA2M20.5$8,915,128$6,941$1,940,363$2,537$4,7486SwinePitFFLarge1MA2M28.6$4,203,137$5,278$1,006,100$1,190$2,2176SwineLiquidFFLarge2MA2M65.4$23,188,517$22,143$1,500,172$8,095$897,4806SwineLiquidFFLarge1MA2M91.2$11,139,166$16,829$1,027,015$3,793$418,0766SwinePitFFLarge2MW2M49.8$19,404,930$133,005$1,384,309$11,313$106,1246SwinePitFFLarge1MW2M69.4$8,403,879$84,485$835,110$5,040$47,0646SwineLiquidFFLarge2MW2M38.5$13,705,324$102,825$670,334$8,746$338,6856SwineLiquidFFLarge1MW2M53.7$6,048,228$65,372$487,391$3,900$145,1286SwineEvaporGFLarge2CE2M14.3$3,706,782$29,861$252,501$2,361$22,1486SwineEvaporGFLarge1CE2M20.0$1,769,902$21,136$189,229$1,101$10,3496SwinePitGFLarge2MA2M33.0$13,455,745$11,173$3,317,330$4,085$7,6426SwinePitGFLarge1MA2M46.0$6,343,325$8,488$1,708,447$1,913$3,5666SwineLiquidGFLarge2MA2M55.0$18,405,743$18,622$1,502,453$6,808$754,7626SwineLiquidGFLarge1MA2M76.7$8,857,881$14,153$975,926$3,190$351,6056SwinePitGFLarge2MW2M63.9$24,589,323$170,663$2,042,317$14,517$136,1716SwinePitGFLarge1MW2M89.1$10,657,133$108,467$1,186,663$6,470$60,4236SwineLiquidGFLarge2MW2M26.5$9,674,844$70,776$537,692$6,020$233,1216SwineLiquidGFLarge1MW2M36.9$4,258,952$44,921$367,447$2,680$99,725Table A-1 (Continued)



### A-8OptionAnimalFarmTypeManureTypeSizeClassRegionCategoryPerformanceNeedsNumberofFacilitiesCapitalCostsFixedCostsAnnualO&M Costs3-YearRecurringO&MCosts5-YearRecurringO&MCosts6SwineEvaporFFLarge2CE3M7.9$7,194,696$-$289,599$-$-6SwineEvaporFFLarge1CE3M11.1$1,474,080$-$109,122$-$-6SwinePitFFLarge2MA3M6.0$3,034,892$-$736,960$-$-6SwinePitFFLarge1MA3M8.4$1,273,927$-$337,213$-$-6SwineLiquidFFLarge2MA3M19.1$7,538,686$-$486,621$-$328,7426SwineLiquidFFLarge1MA3M26.7$3,176,297$-$302,128$-$136,1066SwinePitFFLarge2MW3M41.7$27,748,391$-$2,755,626$-$-6SwinePitFFLarge1MW3M58.2$10,501,144$-$1,258,977$-$-6SwineLiquidFFLarge2MW3M32.3$18,942,283$-$826,445$-$619,4246SwineLiquidFFLarge1MW3M45.0$7,176,735$-$485,210$-$231,3096SwineEvaporGFLarge2CE3M8.1$7,043,577$-$380,488$-$-6SwineEvaporGFLarge1CE3M11.3$1,434,129$-$127,764$-$-6SwinePitGFLarge2MA3M9.7$4,600,005$-$1,241,372$-$-6SwinePitGFLarge1MA3M13.5$1,921,008$-$562,552$-$-6SwineLiquidGFLarge2MA3M16.1$5,981,350$-$492,260$-$277,1076SwineLiquidGFLarge1MA3M22.5$2,522,073$-$288,593$-$114,6966SwinePitGFLarge2MW3M53.6$35,222,032$-$3,806,971$-$-6SwinePitGFLarge1MW3M74.7$13,311,831$-$1,715,016$-$-6SwineLiquidGFLarge2MW3M22.2$13,365,329$-$677,470$-$425,7346SwineLiquidGFLarge1MW3M31.0$5,073,717$-$375,277$-$159,346

### Appendix B

CAFO P OU LTRY 

### M ODEL 

### F ARM 

### C OM PO S T I N G 

### C OSTTable B-1.CAFO Poultry Model Farm Composting Costs



### B-20OperationRegionSizeIDCategoryPerformanceNeeds#FacilitiesNumberofBirdsCropland(acres)Model FarmCompostingCost(a)Model FarmIrrigationCostModelFarm Total(b)Total(c)BroilerMid-AtlanticLarge11H4125,000493$53,988$25,806$79,794$287,372BroilerMid-AtlanticLarge11L4125,000493$53,988$25,806$79,794$287,372BroilerMid-AtlanticLarge11M7125,000493$53,988$25,806$79,794$574,744BroilerMid-AtlanticLarge12H54132,969173$57,430$15,324$72,753$3,910,622BroilerMid-AtlanticLarge12L54132,969173$57,430$15,324$72,753$3,910,622BroilerMid-AtlanticLarge12M108132,969173$57,430$15,324$72,753$7,821,245BroilerMid-AtlanticLarge13H27150,0490$64,807$6,803$71,610$1,911,765BroilerMid-AtlanticLarge13L27150,0490$64,807$6,803$71,610$1,911,765BroilerMid-AtlanticLarge13M53150,0490$64,807$6,803$71,610$3,823,530BroilerMid-AtlanticLarge21H2263,6251,007$113,861$48,034$161,894$337,198BroilerMid-AtlanticLarge21L2263,6251,007$113,861$48,034$161,894$337,198BroilerMid-AtlanticLarge21M4263,6251,007$113,861$48,034$161,894$674,395BroilerMid-AtlanticLarge22H31327,459297$141,431$19,377$160,808$4,998,971BroilerMid-AtlanticLarge22L31327,459297$141,431$19,377$160,808$4,998,971BroilerMid-AtlanticLarge22M62327,459297$141,431$19,377$160,808$9,997,942BroilerMid-AtlanticLarge23H15383,8460$165,784$6,803$172,588$2,664,714BroilerMid-AtlanticLarge23L15383,8460$165,784$6,803$172,588$2,664,714BroilerMid-AtlanticLarge23M31383,8460$165,784$6,803$172,588$5,329,428BroilerSouthLarge11H3125,000853$53,988$40,387$94,375$261,168BroilerSouthLarge11L3125,000853$53,988$40,387$94,375$261,168BroilerSouthLarge11M6125,000853$53,988$40,387$94,375$522,337BroilerSouthLarge12H126134,989129$58,302$13,674$71,976$9,066,428BroilerSouthLarge12L126134,989129$58,302$13,674$71,976$9,066,428BroilerSouthLarge12M252134,989129$58,302$13,674$71,976$18,132,857Table B-1 (Continued)



### B-2OperationRegionSizeIDCategoryPerformanceNeeds#FacilitiesNumberofBirdsCropland(acres)Model FarmCompostingCost(a)Model FarmIrrigationCostModelFarm Total(b)Total(c)BroilerSouthLarge13H46132,0170$57,019$6,803$63,822$2,917,831BroilerSouthLarge13L46132,0170$57,019$6,803$63,822$2,917,831BroilerSouthLarge13M91132,0170$57,019$6,803$63,822$5,835,661BroilerSouthLarge21H2242,6081,591$104,783$85,305$190,088$304,227BroilerSouthLarge21L2242,6081,591$104,783$85,305$190,088$304,227BroilerSouthLarge21M3242,6081,591$104,783$85,305$190,088$608,453BroilerSouthLarge22H73313,353213$135,338$16,686$152,024$11,074,940BroilerSouthLarge22L73313,353213$135,338$16,686$152,024$11,074,940BroilerSouthLarge22M146313,353213$135,338$16,686$152,024$22,149,881BroilerSouthLarge23H26325,8380$140,731$6,803$147,534$3,900,881BroilerSouthLarge23L26325,8380$140,731$6,803$147,534$3,900,881BroilerSouthLarge23M53325,8380$140,731$6,803$147,534$7,801,762Layer:DryMid-WestLarge11H8291,1532,100$133,616$128,773$262,389$1,974,419Layer:DryMid-WestLarge11L8291,1532,100$133,616$128,773$262,389$1,974,419Layer:DryMid-WestLarge11M15291,1532,100$133,616$128,773$262,389$3,948,838Layer:DryMid-WestLarge12H46291,15362$133,616$10,308$143,923$6,574,745Layer:DryMid-WestLarge12L46291,15362$133,616$10,308$143,923$6,574,745Layer:DryMid-WestLarge12M91291,15362$133,616$10,308$143,923$13,149,489Layer:DryMid-WestLarge13H49291,1530$133,616$6,803$140,419$6,811,429Layer:DryMid-WestLarge13L49291,1530$133,616$6,803$140,419$6,811,429Layer:DryMid-WestLarge13M97291,1530$133,616$6,803$140,419$13,622,858Layer:DryMid-WestLarge21H1856,3686,177$393,003$860,156$1,253,159$1,438,648Layer:DryMid-WestLarge21L1856,3686,177$393,003$860,156$1,253,159$1,438,648Layer:DryMid-WestLarge21M2856,3686,177$393,003$860,156$1,253,159$2,877,295Layer:DryMid-WestLarge22H7856,36880$393,003$11,404$404,407$2,818,517Table B-1 (Continued)



### B-3OperationRegionSizeIDCategoryPerformanceNeeds#FacilitiesNumberofBirdsCropland(acres)Model FarmCompostingCost(a)Model FarmIrrigationCostModelFarm Total(b)Total(c)Layer:DryMid-WestLarge22L7856,36880$393,003$11,404$404,407$2,818,517Layer:DryMid-WestLarge22M14856,36880$393,003$11,404$404,407$5,637,033Layer:DryMid-WestLarge23H7856,3680$393,003$6,803$399,807$2,958,806Layer:DryMid-WestLarge23L7856,3680$393,003$6,803$399,807$2,958,806Layer:DryMid-WestLarge23M15856,3680$393,003$6,803$399,807$5,917,611Layer:DrySouthLarge11H3291,1532,424$133,616$162,021$295,636$984,377Layer:DrySouthLarge11L3291,1532,424$133,616$162,021$295,636$984,377Layer:DrySouthLarge11M7291,1532,424$133,616$162,021$295,636$1,968,755Layer:DrySouthLarge12H27291,15362$133,616$10,308$143,923$3,951,927Layer:DrySouthLarge12L27291,15362$133,616$10,308$143,923$3,951,927Layer:DrySouthLarge12M55291,15362$133,616$10,308$143,923$7,903,854Layer:DrySouthLarge13H28291,1530$133,616$6,803$140,419$3,941,432Layer:DrySouthLarge13L28291,1530$133,616$6,803$140,419$3,941,432Layer:DrySouthLarge13M56291,1530$133,616$6,803$140,419$7,882,864Layer:DrySouthLarge21H0856,3687,131$393,003$1,130,489$1,523,493$529,569Layer:DrySouthLarge21L0856,3687,131$393,003$1,130,489$1,523,493$529,569Layer:DrySouthLarge21M1856,3687,131$393,003$1,130,489$1,523,493$1,059,137Layer:DrySouthLarge22H3856,36880$393,003$11,404$404,407$1,159,242Layer:DrySouthLarge22L3856,36880$393,003$11,404$404,407$1,159,242Layer:DrySouthLarge22M6856,36880$393,003$11,404$404,407$2,318,483Layer:DrySouthLarge23H3856,3680$393,003$6,803$399,807$1,171,536Layer:DrySouthLarge23L3856,3680$393,003$6,803$399,807$1,171,536Layer:DrySouthLarge23M6856,3680$393,003$6,803$399,807$2,343,072Layer:WetSouthLarge11H7146,426980$298,477$0$298,477$2,112,481Layer:WetSouthLarge11L7146,426980$298,477$0$298,477$2,112,481Table B-1 (Continued)



### B-4OperationRegionSizeIDCategoryPerformanceNeeds#FacilitiesNumberofBirdsCropland(acres)Model FarmCompostingCost(a)Model FarmIrrigationCostModelFarm Total(b)Total(c)Layer:WetSouthLarge11M14146,426980$298,477$0$298,477$4,224,962Layer:WetSouthLarge12H43146,426260$298,477$0$298,477$12,824,682Layer:WetSouthLarge12L43146,426260$298,477$0$298,477$12,824,682Layer:WetSouthLarge12M86146,426260$298,477$0$298,477$25,649,364Layer:WetSouthLarge13H46146,4260$298,477$0$298,477$13,617,926Layer:WetSouthLarge13L46146,4260$298,477$0$298,477$13,617,926Layer:WetSouthLarge13M91146,4260$298,477$0$298,477$27,235,853TurkeyMid-AtlanticLarge11H1127,3961,233$107,095$60,852$167,946$204,585TurkeyMid-AtlanticLarge11L1127,3961,233$107,095$60,852$167,946$204,585TurkeyMid-AtlanticLarge11M2127,3961,233$107,095$60,852$167,946$409,170TurkeyMid-AtlanticLarge12H24127,396437$107,095$23,895$130,990$3,114,291TurkeyMid-AtlanticLarge12L24127,396437$107,095$23,895$130,990$3,114,291TurkeyMid-AtlanticLarge12M48127,396437$107,095$23,895$130,990$6,228,582TurkeyMid-AtlanticLarge13H16127,3960$107,095$6,803$113,898$1,794,127TurkeyMid-AtlanticLarge13L16127,3960$107,095$6,803$113,898$1,794,127TurkeyMid-AtlanticLarge13M32127,3960$107,095$6,803$113,898$3,588,254TurkeyMid-WestLarge11H2127,3961,023$107,095$48,864$155,959$262,298TurkeyMid-WestLarge11L2127,3961,023$107,095$48,864$155,959$262,298TurkeyMid-WestLarge11M3127,3961,023$107,095$48,864$155,959$524,596TurkeyMid-WestLarge12H33127,396437$107,095$23,895$130,990$4,299,731TurkeyMid-WestLarge12L33127,396437$107,095$23,895$130,990$4,299,731TurkeyMid-WestLarge12M66127,396437$107,095$23,895$130,990$8,599,461TurkeyMid-WestLarge13H22127,3960$107,095$6,803$113,898$2,477,053TurkeyMid-WestLarge13L22127,3960$107,095$6,803$113,898$2,477,053TurkeyMid-WestLarge13M43127,3960$107,095$6,803$113,898$4,954,105

### Appendix C

A DD IT ION A L 

### P OL LU TA NT 

### L OA DS 

### D ATATable C-1.BOD Loadsfrom Large CAFOs (in millions of pounds per year)



### C-20SectorBaselineOption 1Option 2Option 3Option 5aOption 5Option 6Option 7Cattle77774N/A77Dairy33332N/A11Swine7777N/A010Poultry60000N/A00Poultry(wet)13131313N/A01313Total37313131602222Table C-2. Sediment Loads from LargeCAFOs (in millions of pounds per year)SectorBaselineOption 1Option 2Option 3Option 5aOption 5Option 6Option 7Cattle1133910138101381013810113N/A1013810138Dairy18561757175717571749N/A17481749Swine2937293728242824N/A282328242823Poultry1099610965108241082410824N/A1082410824Poultry(wet)885885877877N/A787877877Total280132668226419264192268636112641026411Table C-3.FC Loads from Large CAFOs in 1019Colony Forming UnitsSectorBaselineOption 1Option 2Option 3Option 5aOption 5Option 6Option 7Cattle422412411411162N/A411411Dairy5453535322N/A1930Swine139138138138N/A112Poultry70000N/A00Poultry(wet)57565656N/A05656Total6786596596591841489500

### Table C-4. Incrementa l Pollutan t Reductions

OPTION 3 BOD TSS FC

Cattle 0

. 0 0

. 0 0

. 0

Dai r y 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0

Swi n e 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0

Po ul t r y 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0

Po ul t r y ( w et ) 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0

Po ul t r y t o t a l 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0

OPTION 5 a BOD TSS FC

Cattle 2

. 9 2 4 .7 2 4 9

. 9

Dai r y 1. 2 7. 2 30 .4

Swine N/A N/A N/A

Po ul t r y 0. 0 0. 0 0. 5

Po ultry ( w et) N/A N/A N/A

OPTION 5 BOD TSS FC

Cattle N/A N/A N/A

Dairy 

### N/A N/A N/A

Swi n e 7. 4 0. 6 13 7. 4

Po ultry N/A N/A N/A

Po ul t r y ( w et ) 13 .3 89 .6 56 .4

OPTION 6 BOD TSS FC

Dai r y 2. 2 8. 8 33 .3

Swi n e 6. 3 0. 5 13 7. 0

OPTION 7 BOD TSS FC

Cattle 0

. 0 0

. 1 0

. 6

Dai r y 1. 8 7. 3 22 .9

Swi n e 7. 2 0. 5 13 6. 1

Po ul t r y 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0

Po ul t r y ( w et ) 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0



### C-2