Liniers Cattle Market - Report by Agustina Besada

Sustainable Operations for the Liniers Cattle Market Buenos Aires, Argentina

Columbia University Capstone Project, Dec 2014

Front page. Figure 1. Picture of Liniers Cattle Market Source: Site visit by Capstone Team. October 31, 2014.

Client: Unit of Special Projects - Matanza-Riachuelo River Basin (UPE CUMAR) at the Government of Buenos Aires City • Silvia Lospenato - slospennato@buenosalres.gob.ar (Director of UPE-CUMAR, ACUMAR Board) • Ana Barata Vallejo - abaratavallejo@buenosaires.gob.ar • Amilcar Lopez - amilcarlopez@buenosaires.gob.ar International Cooperation at the Government of Buenos Aires City • Tomás Kroyer – tomaskroyer@buenosaires.gob.ar (Director-General) • Francisco Miguens Campos - francisco.miguens@buenosaires.gob.ar Capstone Team: Master of Science in Sustainability Management Candidates • Agustina Besada - maf2253@gmail.com • Colin Block - ctb2130@columbia.edu • Keith Bottum - kb2505@columbia.edu • Miguel Cabrera - mac2401@columbia.edu • Roa Elbizri - rme2128@columbia.edu • Angeline Kong - ak3548@columbia.edu • Karen Mahrous - km2946@columbia.edu • Middoni Ramos - mr3340@columbia.edu • Isaac Tannenbaum - it2205@columbia.edu Faculty Advisor: • Kizzy Charles-Guzman - kc2688@columbia.edu

Table of Contents Executive Summary - 4 Issue Context - 5 Riachuelo River Basin Cilda単ez Stream Liniers Cattle Market Governing Bodies Methodology - 9 Define Research Analyze Recommend Manure Management System - 11 Strategy 1: Effluent Management Project 1: Wastewater Treatment System Project 2: Vegetative Treatment Area Project 3: Stormwater Management System Strategy 2: Solid Manure Management Project 4: Composting Plan Project 5: Manure to Energy System Strategy 3: Regulation and Enforcement Project 6: Establish Water Quality Criteria Project 7: Regulatory Enforcement Conclusion - 33 Appendices - 34 Endnotes - 49

Executive Summary Beef is an extremely important commodity in Argentina, both economically and culturally. Argentina satisfies more than 7% of the world’s annual beef demand, while also meeting a significant domestic demand.1 Beef transactions account for 10% of Argentina’s total agricultural economic activity and, according to national statistics, there are roughly 50 million head of cattle in Argentina at any given time.2 However, despite its importance, the cattle industry presents a number of sustainability problems for the country. Beef cattle and their waste contribute greatly to the contamination of drinking water, rivershed degradation and damage to air quality, which, in turn, lead to various public health issues.

pollution, as it has degraded their waterways, contaminated their drinking water and damaged their air quality. Collaborating with the Unit of Special Projects for the Matanza-Riachuelo River Basin (UPE CUMAR), the Columbia University Capstone Team worked to address the key issues associated with the Liniers Cattle Market. First, a lack of infrastructure and standard operational practices at the Market have been causing effluent to be released into the Cildañez. Second, the complex political climate surrounding the market has been making regulation enforcement difficult and largely ineffective. As a result of this collaboration with UPE CUMAR, research by the Capstone Team, interviews with key stakeholders, and a visit to the Cildañez stream, Liniers Cattle Market and surrounding neighborhoods, the Capstone Team developed a plan to mitigate pollution from the Liniers Cattle Market to the Cildañez stream. This plan consists of a comprehensive Manure Management System comprising three primary strategies aimed to make market operations more efficient, reduce the solid and liquid waste from being discharged into the Cildañez stream and tighten policy regulations that are either currently not in place or unenforced.

The goal of this Capstone Project is to help mitigate some of the harmful effects of the cattle industry by focusing our efforts on the Liniers Cattle Market, the largest operational cattle market in the world. The Liniers Cattle Market is responsible for 15% of Argentina’s total cattle transactions each year and serves as a price setter for the entire national livestock industry. The market sells roughly 6,500 head of cattle per day, which generate over 600 cubic meters of manure every month.3 Much of this manure effluent flows directly into the Cildañez stream, and further downstream into the Matanza-Riachuelo river basin, the most polluted river basin in all of the Americas and one of the top 10 most polluted sites in the world. Six million residents of the river basin, including many dense informal housing settlements along the river, are directly affected by this 4

Issue Context Argentina has historically been one of the world’s largest exporters of beef. In 2006, the federal government found the price of beef domestically to be rising too quickly and attempted to lower it by limiting exports. Despite these efforts, Argentina remained the 3rd largest global exporter of beef during this time, exporting roughly 745,000 tons annually, while also meeting an annual domestic demand of approximately 136 pounds per person. The government has since levied a 15% export tax on fresh beef, which along with other factors, has dropped Argentina to 11th on the global export list.4 Presently, beef exports for 2015 are forecasted at 210,000 tons, an increase from the 2014 estimate, but still an insignificant volume for what Argentina has historically exported.5 Despite its decline over the past decade, beef still remains a critical part of Argentina’s economy and culture. Most traders expect the government to continue limiting beef exports to keep domestic beef prices low, and domestic beef production and consumption are projected to remain unchanged.6

per day, four days per week. The market also supports roughly 2,500 local families through its operations.9 Nonetheless, the market is causing various forms of environmental damage. Direct manure discharge from the market is polluting the Cildañez stream, which is channeled directly below it. The Matanza-Riachuelo River, the receiving body of the Cildañez stream, now has levels of zinc, lead, copper, nickel and chromium that are all above recommended limits.10 Additionally, there are more than 13 slums and 100 open-air garbage dumps on the banks of the river and some of its streams,11 which along with other industries, contribute to making the Matanza-Riachuelo River Basin one of the most polluted sites in the world.12

MATANZA-RIACHUELO RIVER BASIN The Matanza-Riachuelo River Basin is part of a 64 kilometer (40 mile) body of water that originates in the northeast of the Province of Buenos Aires, runs through the south of the City of Buenos Aires and empties into the Rio de la Plata on the border of Argentina and Uruguay.13 The name of the river at its point of origin is Matanza (Slaughter River in English), and once it reaches city limits, it is known as the Riachuelo. The river’s main tributaries are the Cañuelas, Chacón and Morales streams in the Province of Buenos Aires and the Cildañez stream in the City of Buenos Aires. Because the Matanza-Riachuelo

The Liniers Cattle Market is located in the heart of the City of Buenos Aires, within the Province of Buenos Aires, Argentina’s primary beef-producing province.7 The current population of the City of Buenos Aires is estimated at 2,891,000, making it the largest city in Argentina and the second-largest metropolitan area in South America.8 In addition to its importance as the national price-setter for the cattle industry, the Liniers Cattle Market supplies all of the domestic beef needs for Buenos Aires, with an average of 6,500 head of cattle sold at the market 5

is located in a relatively flat region, it is highly affected by the Rio de la Plata’s tides, which can sometimes cause flooding in the region around the basin.14 According to the 2010 National Census, over 6 million residents live in the river basin, accounting for a staggering 15% of the nation’s population.15 An estimated 10% of the total population of the Matanza-Riachuelo River Basin live in informal settlements, often located in flood-prone areas or near garbage dumps.16 Much of this population lacks access to clean water, sewage, plumbing, health care, and proper housing structures.17

CILDAÑEZ STREAM The Cildañez is one of the primary streams that feeds into the Matanza-Riachuelo, with a catchment area of 3,956 hectares.18 This stream runs from west to east, starting in the Province of Buenos Aires and crossing through the southern area of the City of Buenos Aires before feeding into the river. The Cildañez was originally an open body of water and was known as the “Blood Stream”, because it received waste from the slaughterhouses established in the region. Today, most of the stream is channeled and its catchment includes the full storm network, urban runoff and excess water drains of the region.19 However, illegal and consistent industrial and domestic waste deposits toxic chemicals, organic pollutants and heavy metals into the stream.20 Due to the current pollution levels and the stream’s slow flow, the Cildañez is now rancid and stagnant. There are no signs of life in it, and it has become essentially a sewer.21

Figure 2. Schematic Map of the Riachuelo River, the Cildañez Stream and Liniers Cattle Market.

(80 acres) of property in the City of Buenos Aires, Argentina. Founded in 1884, the market was initially located outside the urban area. Subsequent years were met with the growth of the market’s size, as well as the continued development of the city center, which grew around the market’s borders. While the government has consistently owned the land on which the market resides, the market operator has changed hands multiple times. Since Currently, the City of Buenos Aires is studying the 1992, the market has been operated under a concession “Arroyo Cildañez Basin” program aimed at substantially agreement by Mercado Liniers, S.A. expanding and improving the city’s sewage and stormLawmakers have attempted to relocate the market water systems. This program aims to improve local water outside of city limits, but have been unsuccessful due to quality and runoff systems and reduce social and eco22 nomic impacts caused by flooding. With the support of the market’s economic importance to the region. Roughthe World Bank, the City of Buenos Aires has prepared ly 100,000 animals are auctioned at the Liniers Cattle the Hydraulic Planning Director Plan, with an objective Market each month, accounting for 15% of all cattle aucof improving living conditions in low-income areas of the tions in the country.24 While pollution from the market’s Cildañez stream through improvements of basic infra- operation is cause for concern, the market is also an asstructure and flood control. While the plan is a good start, set to the community. Many local community members it does not fully address the issue of industrial waste dis- are employed by the market, and many more rely on the charged into the stream.23 Waste from the Liniers Cattle existence of the market to meet beef demand. While it is difficult to quantify the ramifications of relocating the Market is also a primary polluter of the stream. market due to pollution regulations, the effects would be economically damaging to the community and its meat industry.

LINIERS CATTLE MARKET

Four days a week from 6:00pm to 5:00am, 400 cattle transport trucks arrive at the Liniers Market, carrying The Liniers Cattle Market is located on 34 hectares an average of 6,500 head of cattle per day. After the 6

cattle are sorted by their owner, source, number and sex, they are auctioned to wholesalers. Bidding commences at 8:00am and cattle are held in pens until they are sold, weighed and trucked out by their respective buyers. There is no standardized bidding process; therefore, the duration of wait times for cattle and the timing of the collection of manure in their pens can vary significantly.25

stream sample location, biological oxygen demand (BOD), phosphorus and ammonium nitrate were found to be nearly twice the level as upstream samples. Fecal coliforms, Fecal Streptococcus, and Enterococcus, were found to be 4-5 times higher in upstream samples, while total fecal coliforms, non-fecal coliforms and E-Coli were all found at greater than 10 times their upstream levels. As such, it is determined that effluent from the market is Livestock operations like the Liniers Cattle Market further contaminating the Matanza-Riachuelo. generate a considerable amount of waste, which can contaminate local water sources. When not managed Human contact with heavily contaminated waters properly, cattle manure can be a potential non-point can lead to serious health risks. Biological contaminants source of water pollution.26 Many contaminants are pres- such as fecal coliforms can increase exposure of humans ent in livestock waste, including pathogens, heavy met- to zoonotic pathogens, thereby increasing the risk of als, pharmaceuticals and naturally excreted hormones.27 pathogenic diseases as well as outbreaks of waterborne Transport of these contaminants from animal waste to diseases such as cholera, typhoid and hepatitis. Given water bodies has significant impacts on aquatic ecosys- the propensity for flooding in the Matanza-Riachuelo tems as well as human health.28 basin, the addition of these contaminants increases the overall health risk factors of the population living in the Water samples from the Cildañez stream were tak- basin. en at multiple locations by the Argentinian Environmental Protection Agency (APRA) from 2010 to 2014 in order to establish what pollutants in the Cildañez are attributable to the Liniers Market. Two specific sample locations were compared in a report released in 2014 by the Office of the Governor of the City of Buenos Aires, one taken The Liniers Cattle Market resides in a complex poupstream where the Maldonado and Cildañez streams litical climate. The market sits on land owned by the Armeet, and the other downstream where the Cildañez gentinian government within the City of Buenos Aires, stream intersects the Matanza-Riachuelo. At the down- and is privately managed and operated under a concession agreement with the Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Fishery. Furthermore, the market plays an important role in the beef industry of Argentina, making it difficult to regulate, relocate or close due to environmental violations. This overlapping context makes regulation difficult and requires a sensitive approach when working with the market.

GOVERNING BODIES

The Matanza-Riachuelo River Basin Authority (ACUMAR) is a public agency that serves as the ultimate authority on environmental issues in the region. It is an autonomous, self-sufficient and inter-jurisdictional entity that combines work with the three governments that have authority in the territory: the Federal Government, the Province of Buenos Aires and the City of Buenos Aires.29 In 2008, the Supreme Court of Argentina appointed ACUMAR to implement a restructuring plan in response to a court case known as “Case Mendoza”. The claim was filed in 2004 by a group of neighbors who complained about the deteriorating conditions of the Riachuelo River and the neighboring communities.30 As a result, ACUMAR presented the Comprehensive Plan for Environmental Sanitation (PISA) in 2009. The plan was a joint effort by specialists in administrative and technical matters from the three aforementioned jurisdictional levels and includes comments from academia and civil

Figure 3. Schematic map of sampling locations. 7

Figure 4. Picture of the Liniers Cattle Market during a rain event. Source: Site visit by Capstone Team. October 31, 2014.

institutions. The PISA plan defines ACUMARâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s environWithin ACUMAR, the City of Buenos Aires is repremental policy and details the guidelines to improve the sented by two officials: Juan Carlos Villalonga, President quality of life of the population living in the basin, restore of the Environmental Protection Agency (APRA) and the environment, and prevent further damage.31 Silvia Lospennato, head of the Unit of Special Projects for the Matanza-Riachuelo River Basin (UPE CUMAR).34 The mission of ACUMAR is to remediate the Matan- UPE CUMAR approached the Columbia Capstone team za-Riachuelo through the creation of joint public policies to develop recommendations and provide best operathat promote new infrastructure development, clean tional practices which address the pollution caused by and maintain public spaces, regulate industrial activity, the Liniers Cattle Market. control environmental conditions and increase social engagement.32 In doing so, ACUMAR has developed a registry that includes 25,343 establishments (11,457 of which are industrial in nature) and, to date, 1,507 have been declared Polluting Agents.33 While efforts are under way to address these sources, another primary concern for ACUMAR is the Liniers Cattle Market. In 2001, as a means to address the negative impacts of the market, the Buenos Aires Legislature mandated that the Liniers Market relocate outside of city limits. The Legislature also passed a law that would prohibit the entry of live cattle into the city. However, these mandates have not been successfully enforced and have been continuously extended through ongoing appeals. Nonetheless, the market was declared a Polluting Agent by ACUMAR and was required to present a reconversion plan to comply with ACUMAR standards, currently being developed with guidance from the National Agricultural Technology Institute (INTA). 8

Methodology RESEARCH

To address the issue and achieve the project goals defined by UPE CUMAR, the Capstone Team selected a four-phase methodology: define, research, analyze and recommend. This framework provides the team with a logically sequenced strategy to collect and analyze data to provide the most feasible recommendations to UPE CUMAR.

Research was conducted in three primary categories: the operations of the Liniers Cattle Market, technology solutions used in manure management and policy solutions. Primary sources of data were provided to the team by UPE CUMAR, including water samples taken at various other locations along the Cildañez, photos of the Cildañez stream and surrounding area, waste collection tickets from the market, a summary of an audit conducted by ACUMAR of the Liniers Cattle Market and the market’s response to the audit.

DEFINE Together with UPE CUMAR, the Capstone Team defined the goal of analyzing the current operations of the Liniers Cattle Market in order to provide ACUMAR with recommendations on strategies that can prevent further pollution to the Cildañez stream. To achieve this goal, the team developed a plan to identify, analyze and synthesize international cases which would illuminate how to better tackle the challenges of the market’s operations and impacts, and to develop recommendations which would achieve immediate operational improvements that meet the environmental, social and economic sustainability goals of the client. Although remediation of the Cildañez stream was not part of the Capstone Team’s project scope, the team kept in mind the client’s goal to remediate the stream and considered this goal throughout the course of the project.

An assessment of best practices was conducted using case studies on cattle markets around the world, Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) in the US and environmental standards in the US and EU. Interviews were conducted with water scientists, policy experts, the President of the Liniers Cattle Market, community engagement leaders in the Cildañez stream and officials from UPE CUMAR, ACUMAR and APRA. Site visits to the Liniers Cattle Market and Cildañez stream were also conducted. The goals of these meetings were to assess the current operations of the Liniers Cattle Market, as well as the local political climate and feasibility of potential recommendations. During this phase, the Capstone Team also uncovered existing recommendations for the market made by other groups such as INTA. Some of these plans have been recommended but not implemented and others were in various stages of trial. These trials and recommendations have been taken into 9

consideration by the Capstone Team. Nonetheless, it should be noted that due to the political tension between the market and ACUMAR, gaining direct access to the market’s operations and strategies was a challenging and sensitive endeavor. Although a guided site visit to the Liniers Cattle Market was conducted, the Capstone Team was unable to interview employees of the market and has limited knowledge of the inner workings and future plans of the market’s operators.

ANALYZE Although challenges to uncovering market procedures existed, some key findings were made during the research phase that helped the Capstone Team determine a recommendation plan. These findings were used as the primary selection criteria for narrowing the recommendations selected for the final plan. Onsite manure management at the Liniers Cattle Market is lacking in infrastructure and operational management, causing significant volumes of cattle waste to enter the stream through 19 discharge points from the market to the stream. Due to the complex political climate surrounding the market and the market’s economic importance, enforcement of existing regulations has been challenging and ineffectual. The market is currently implementing pilot projects to reduce effluent running into the stream. The primary project currently underway is a Geotube system; a dewater-

ing system that separates liquid waste from solid waste via a filtering textile and gravity. The Geotube system only processes 30% of the waste stream from the market and does not properly treat effluent before it is discharged into the stream. Despite the challenges with this system, the Capstone Team chose to incorporate it into the final recommendation, so as to keep implementation costs lower by working with what the market currently has in place. An in-depth analysis of the water quality from the Liniers Cattle Market into the Cildañez stream was also conducted during the Analyze phase. Between 2010 and 2014, multiple samples were taken from various points along the Cildañez stream by APRA. The Capstone Team benchmarked these samples against ACUMAR, U.S. EPA and EU standards. Based on this analysis, the determination was made that Liniers Cattle Market is contributing to the pollution of the Cildañez. This analysis justifies the focus on the Liniers Cattle Market as the source of pollutants dumped into the Cildañez.

RECOMMEND The final stage of the project was to create a recommendation plan that would achieve the goal of mitigating pollution from the market. Using the key findings and other relevant data uncovered, the Capstone Team developed a comprehensive manure management system, which incorporates three key strategies and projects to implement for each of these strategies. This plan is outlined below.

Figure 5: Picture of the Liniers Cattle Market Source: Site visit by Capstone Team. October 31, 2014.

Manure Management System Based on research conducted and a critical analysis of all data collected, the project team has identified a comprehensive manure management system to stop waste from the Liniers Market from entering the Cilda単ez

OPERATIONS

stream. The manure management system has three primary strategies, which are to implement an effluent management system, divert solid manure waste from entering the stream and tighten enforcement of regulations.

EFFLUENT MANAGEMENT Wastewater Treatment System Operations

Vegetative Treatment Area

Stormwater System

Greywater

Pre

MANURE

Primary

Secondary

Operations

SOLID MANURE MANAGEMENT Composting

Manure to Energy System

REGULATION AND ENFORCEMENT Establish Water Quality Criteria

Regulatory Enforcement

Figure 6. Manure Management System 11

Figure 7. Proposed layout of Liniers Cattle Market recommended by the Capstone Team.

Each strategy is comprised of projects, which, when implemented as a whole, comprehensively address the manure management issues at the market. If the entire plan cannot be implemented, or must be implemented in waves due to political or economic barriers, each project can be implemented as a stand-alone plan to ad-

dress one particular area of the problem. Figure 6 shows a schematic diagram of the Manure Management System, along with the strategies and projects. And, Figure 7 shows a possible layout of these recommendations on the marketâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s property.

STRATEGY 1: EFFLUENT MANAGEMENT Pollution from the Liniers Cattle Market enters the CildaĂąez by means of runoff containing manure and carrying with it biological contaminants. The market does not have a comprehensive plan for preventing contaminated runoff from entering the stream and the current Geotube system at the market is insufficient in that it only treats an estimated 30% of the effluent produced at the market.35 Current infrastructure at the market is also unequipped to handle effluent runoff during heavy storm events.36 This inefficiency is especially evident in the paddock areas, which are open to the elements, allowing for the runoff of effluent into nearby drainage systems.37 While an effort to cover some paddock areas with metal roofing has been made, the roofing is not extensive enough to prevent stormwater pollution. To implement an effluent management strategy, the Capstone Team recommends that three primary projects be utilized: a wastewater treatment plant, a vegetative treatment system and a stormwater management system. While these projects are most effective when implemented together, they are also designed to be implemented individually to reduce effluent pollution.

PROJECT 1: WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM Background Wastewater from cattle operations contains an abundant amount of manure that are comprised of excreta, hair, chemicals, bedding and process-generated wastewater. Animal waste is more concentrated and carries different characteristics and behaviors as compared to municipal wastewater.38 Treating manure from livestock operations can reduce a significant amount of manure mass and nutrients that are transported to water channels, reduce concentrations of pathogens and antibiotics in animal manure that will help lessen biosecurity and health risks, reduce odor, recover material for beneficial reuse such as energy or composting for fertilizer and can reduce remediation costs. Overall, a comprehensive wastewater treatment system will help reduce potential degradation of natural resources and reduce the exposure of humans to disease-carrying agents.

back to operations

GREYWATER

PRE TREATMENT

PRIMARY TREATMENT

sludge

SECONDARY TREATMENT

sludge

SOLID MANURE MANAGEMENT Figure 8. Wastewater Treatment System.

As mentioned previously, the Liniers Cattle Market is piloting a Geotube dewatering system, which is a system that separates solid manure waste from wastewater. An estimated 30% of runoff from the paddocks are channeled into an underground pit.39 From there, water is pumped through a serpentine, where flocculent is injected to aggregate particulate in wastewater. Although this system has been shown to be effective in separating solids,40 we do not advise the use of Geotube filtering as a primary treatment, because Geotubes do not remove the microorganisms and unwanted nutrients from the liquid. We also estimate that when the total effluent flow of the market is accounted, it exceeds the design capacity of the Geotube system, which is currently two systems that have a combined capacity of 170 cubic meters. In addition, an issue frequently associated with the operation of Geotubes is disposal of the residual solids. Although commercial composters may be willing to purchase these solids and defray some of the associated costs, it could be difficult and potentially costly to dispose of this byproduct.41

projects. After considering this criteria, we believe that the optimal solution for a treatment system of the market effluents would be a two-tiered system: a closed-loop wastewater treatment system, which would allow for the reuse of liquids as greywater, and a manure to energy system (discussed further in this report), which would utilize the residual solids from the wastewater to produce energy. Figure 8 shows the various components of this system. 1. Manure and process water influents Based on a site visit to the Liniers Cattle Market, there are 19 discharge points at the market. In order to ensure that all wastewater from the market is captured into the system and does not flow to these discharge points, all ditches, runoffs and sewage carrying organic waste should be identified and directed to the pretreatment phase. 2. Pretreatment: Equalization Pond

Recommendation To minimize the discharge of solids and to comply with effluent discharge regulations under the provision of Resolution No. 001/07, it is necessary for the Liniers Cattle Market to have a wastewater management system. In order to comprehensively address the current manure and process water problem at the Liniers Market, three factors need to be included in the solution: scalability of Figure 9. Equalization Pond. the system, sustainability and the integration to other Source: EG Ingenieria. â&#x20AC;&#x153;Tratamiento de Efluentes.â&#x20AC;? 2012. http://www.eg-ingenieria.com.ar/referencias.html.

Prior to any treatment or filtration, it is imperative to 4. Secondary Treatment: Sequencing Batch Reactor have a pretreatment stage, so as to reduce stress on later components of the system. For this purpose, we recommend the construction of an equalization pond. This pond will provide a place to temporarily hold the incoming market effluent. An advantage of the equalization pond is that it is a relatively low maintenance system that requires little management effort.42 In the proposed equalization pond, floating solids need to be allowed to settle, sometimes for three months or more. The remaining water can then be treated. Because waste treatment processes work best with a uniform flow rate, the equalization pond will act as a holding area and regulate flow. After the wastewater has been Figure 11. Sequencing Batch Reactor (SBR). pumped for further treatment, the remaining sludge can Source: http://www.ozzikleen.com/announcements/leadbe mechanically removed from the bottom of the pond. ing-the-way-in-wastewater-management These slurry residuals can be then taken to an anaerobic At this stage, the wastewater has undergone medigester. chanical and chemical treatment, which has removed the majority of solid wastes. What remains is a liquid effluent 3. Primary Treatment: Geotube Dewatering that may still contain harmful nutrients and pathogens. In order to effectively prevent the release of these pollutants from entering the Cildañez stream, there must be a biological treatment and disinfection process in place. Due to the high levels of biological content and zoonotic pathogens found in animal waste, we recommend that the market install a sequencing batch reactor (SBR) as a secondary treatment.

Figure 10. Geotubes. Source: Depositos Flexibles. n.d. http://depositosflexibles.net/efluentes-de-granja-purines/. 2014.

The current Geotube system can serve as an effective secondary mechanical and chemical separator after pretreatment in the equalization pond. Since a majority of solids will be removed in the equalization pond, the Geotubes will have a high efficiency rate, removing up to 95% of the remaining suspended solids and unwanted nutrients.44 The Geotubes do require significant retention time, estimated at three to six months for full dewatering to occur.45

An SBR utilizes a biological process in which air and bacteria are introduced to wastewater to remove excess nutrients such as phosphorous and nitrogen, and to reduce biological oxygen demand (BOD). This process is also referred to as an activated-sludge process. An SBR is an appropriate treatment method for the Liniers Cattle Market because it combines the many stages of a traditional continuous flow activated-sludge process into one efficient and cost-effective system.48 The SBR can also be designed to treat a wide range of influent volumes, which would be ideal for the Liniers Market considering the retention time of the Geotubes. SBRs have been utilized since the 1920’s in numerous countries.49 Improvements in equipment and aeration devices have made SBRs a reliable option for wastewater treatment, especially in areas with limited space.

Separated liquid from the equalization pond is pumped through a serpentine into the Geotube system, and flocculent is injected as the liquid is flowing through the serpentine. The flocculent acts as an adhesive for the remaining particulates and, as this slurry of wastewater and aggregated particulates enters the Geotubes, it is filtered through a porous textile. The captured solid residuals of this process can be later recycled for compost-fertilizer. The liquid filtrate then goes to a secondary treatment, the sequencing batch reactor. 14

The SBR follows a five step process: • Fill – During this phase, influent water is added to a basin of microbes in the activated sludge, allowing for biochemical reactions to take place. The purpose of this step is to remove nitrogen and phosphorous from the liquid through a continuous process of oxygenation and deoxygenation which promotes nitrification and denitrification. • React – During this phase, no additional wastewater is added and aeration continues until complete

biodegradation of BOD and nitrogen is achieved. At this point, nutrients are being consumed by microbes and, as the amount of feed available decreases, microorganisms will begin to die and settle to the bottom. • Settle – Aeration is discontinued during this stage, which allows for solids and liquids to separate. The treated effluent will float to the top and solids will settle to the bottom. • Decant – A decanter is then used to remove the treated effluent through a discharge valve without disturbing the settled sludge.

biologicals or pathogens remain after treatment. If biologicals are discovered, a disinfection process must occur. Disinfection is considered to be the primary mechanism for the inactivation of pathogens to prevent the spread of waterborne diseases in waterways.50 Ultraviolet (UV) disinfection is an effective method to remove pathogens. A UV disinfection system transfers electromagnetic energy from a mercury arc lamp to an organism’s genetic material via radiation to penetrate the cell wall of an organism, destroying its ability to reproduce. UV disinfection is a cost-effective, user-friendly and low maintenance process, which has a shorter contact time (20 to 30 seconds) as compared to other disinfectants.51

• Idle – Activated sludge, or waste sludge, at the bottom of the SBR basin must be removed and man- Implementation aged. Ideally, this waste sludge should be compostConstruction of the wastewater treatment plant will ed or pumped to an anaerobic digester used for likely take 1-2 years to implement considering the need a manure to energy system. More information on for review, design and actual installation. The first step in composting and manure to energy systems will be implementing the wastewater treatment system will be discussed later in this report. to collect and centralize all sources of wastewater into 5. Greywater Storage a temporary holding area or equalization basin. All exAfter the secondary treatment is completed, the fil- isting stormwater ditches, trenches, and sewage piping tered water could be stored in a tank to be used as flush must be routed to the pre-treatment stage. The water or irrigation water in day-to-day market operations or, if can then be channeled into either the anaerobic digester it exceeds the storage capacity, greywater can also be for generation of energy, or treated for reuse. Following used in composting, vegetative treatment areas or add- installation, the market will also need to either hire or desed to an anaerobic digester which are all referenced in ignate a wastewater treatment operator to monitor and this report. If the greywater is reused in market opera- maintain the system. tions, this will create a closed-loop system.

This recommendation can be better executed upon Greywater must be tested regularly to ensure that no the enforcement of stricter limits and policies by UPE CUMAR. Upon establishment of more stringent guideSequencing Batch Reactor Used at Dairy Farms in Virginia, United States Animal waste from dairy farms is a significant source of pollution in Virginia and other states along the Chesapeake Bay. Virginia dairy farmers maintain about 119,000 dairy cows, which produce more than 225,000 cubic meters of manure waste per month. The Virginia Tech Dairy Center presented an opportunity to develop treatment strategies for removing manure wastewater and nitrogen, and incorporate advanced methods for managing manure wastes. This includes a manure flushing and collection system, screening of the flushed manure to remove solids, gravity settling, and a biological treatment system. The treated water is recycled and used to supplement flushing water needs in the barn. The objective of this research study was to determine an appropriate nitrogen removal system through biological treatment, specifically, a sequencing batch reactor (SBR) because it requires less land and cost. Research efforts undertaken involved characterizing flushed dairy manure wastewater based on their pollutant concentrations, developing kinetic and stoichiometric parameters associated with nitrogen removal from wastewater, and determining the efficiency and feasibility of SBRs for dairy farms.52 The characterization showed that wastewater from the dairy farms had high carbon to nitrogen ratios sufficient for biological nitrogen removal. Treatment in the SBR was able to achieve between 89% and 93% removal of soluble inorganic nitrogen as well as up to 98% removal of chemical oxygen demand (COD). In addition, a solids removal efficiency rate of between 79% and 94% was achieved. This study demonstrated that sequencing batch reactors are capable of achieving high nitrogen removal of dairy manure wastewaters.53 15

lines and hefty fines, the market will have to put a system in place to prevent the discharge of contaminants. Also, through proper stormwater management, this will ensure that all process wastewater will be designated into an equalization pond to be processed through the wastewater system. Based on an estimate by the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) in the state of New York, a typical wastewater treatment plant roughly costs USD $500,000. The equipment cost will be around USD $400,000, while installation costs will be USD $100,000. This system would be a complete package including pumps, instruments, control devices, and piping.54 However, for the unique system recommended above for the Liniers Market, a cost estimate for each component was broken down to assess the cost of the equalization basin, sequencing batch reactor, and greywater storage tank. The cost of the Sequencing Batch Reactor (SBR) technology was evaluated at a hog farm in Wilson, NC. The SBR system constructed on the farm is designed to treat wastewater from 2,100 hogs. The system is capable of processing 27,687 gallons per day (approximately 105 cubic meters) of wastewater, which is roughly the daily amount of wastewater produced by 3,568 hogs in a flush system. In this system, waste from the farm was diverted to an equalization tank with a liquid volume of 81,660 gallons (309 cubic meters). From the equalization tank, 40,380 gallons of waste per day will be pumped to the sequencing batch reactor for treatment with a retention time of 7 days, and is thus designed to hold a liquid volume of 285,810 gallons (1,082 cubic meters). Reported construction cost estimates were based on invoices provided by Cavanaugh and Associates, and are separated into unit processes. The total invoiced cost of the SBR technology was USD $461,544.55 It is estimated that the Liniers Cattle Market will require a system with a capacity of 1,300 cubic meters, which is just slightly larger than this one.56

amount of flush water needed at the market (estimated 150 cubic meters), a 60,000 gallon tank (227 cubic meters) would be an appropriate size for the market. Financial constraints may hinder successful implementation of a wastewater treatment plant on site. As mentioned, many of these treatment processes entail high capital and operational costs. If the anaerobic digester can be successfully implemented, it can provide a sustainable source of energy to the wastewater treatment system. Other constraints could include the lack of technical expertise at the market to operate a wastewater treatment system, and additional training will need to be administered to ensure stormwater pollution prevention throughout operations to limit the amount of wastewater entering the system.

PROJECT 2: VEGETATIVE TREATMENT AREA Background Current effluent management at the Liniers Market is limited to the Geotube system, which is pushed to its capacity limits during storm events, easily overflowing and creating hazardous runoff. Vegetative treatment areas (VTA) can help decrease capacity loads on the current Geotube system and offers an alternative or supplementary solution for liquid effluent remediation at the market.

A Vegetative Treatment System (VTS) can be implemented in a number of different iterations based on location and materials available, but is typically comprised of a holding tank that is able to separate liquids and solids, a pump and irrigation infrastructure. The liquid effluent is pumped from the holding tank, which can potentially be shared with the equalization pond from the wastewater treatment system through a pipeline which leads A 60,000 gallon greywater storage tank was estimat- to a vegetative treatment area (VTA). A VTA is an area ed by the DEC to cost USD $60,000.57 Depending on the comprised of perennial grasses or forages used for the treatment of liquid effluent, stormwater runoff or other process waters.59 Through a site assessment, a proper area is selected as the VTA, typically a brownfield area in need of vegetation. The effluent pumped to the VTA empties via irrigation as a fertilizer for the vegetation, while the vegetation conversely acts as a filter to diffuse pollutants into the permeable ground, thereby mitigating harmful runoff into the stream.

Recommendation Table 1. Breakdown of Construction and Material costs for Equalization Pond and Sequencing Batch Reactor.58

It is recommended that a VTA be incorporated into the manure management system at the market, acting as an additional measure to relieve the current system of 16

US MARC Recommends Vegetative Treatment System at CAFOs throughout the United States The US EPA requires Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFO) operating in the US to manage runoff from a 25-year, 24 hour storm event.60 Regulations allowing the use of alternative runoff management technology have helped to spur interest in VTS as a viable and cost-effective management solution, and a long-term study completed by the United States Meat Animal Research Center (USMARC) explored the potential of utilizing VTA as a means of feedlot pollution mitigation. While VTAs are currently approved by the US Environmental Protection Agency, there is ongoing concern that the continued application of liquid waste in VTA could potentially leach into groundwater.61 This study aimed to uncover whether or not a VTA could be a long-term solution for pollution mitigation in cattle feedlots without polluting groundwater resources. Over a four-year period, researchers tracked nitrogen levels in hay grown in the VTA. Following each harvest, researchers found that nitrogen levels in the hay equaled or exceeded estimated levels in the liquid discharge. They also found no evidence of any nutrient leaching from the VTA into groundwater.62 Thus, the study allowed researchers to have further confidence in the longterm sustainability of VTS, a relatively low-tech and cost effective method of pollution abatement as compared to other technologies.

liquid effluent during overloading periods and to assist in the diffusion of pollutants found in liquid waste. The Capstone Team recommends that the UPE CUMAR present the Liniers Cattle Market with a proposal for an onsite VTS to better manage the marketâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s liquid effluent from cattle areas. We encourage UPE CUMAR to work with the market to ensurethe implementation of alternative, low-cost technologies, which provide a low-impact but highly effective solution to pollution mitigation.

Implementation This short-term implementation project will involve a thorough site analysis of potential brownfield sites and the best locations for VTS infrastructure at the Liniers Market. While a VTS is inherently low tech, there are a number of factors that must be in place to ensure proper implementation. Infrastructure must be able to adequately manage effluent, especially during storm events. It must also be noted that there may be significant labor and materials costs, making an efficient VTS design a priority. A pump VTS would be the most easily implementable given the current infrastructure and layout of the market as infrastructure additions would be minimal as compared to other systems. A pump VTS, shown in a diagram below, is comprised of three main parts: feedlot (paddock), solid settling basin (SSB) and vegetative treatment area (VTA). Liquid animal waste from paddocks and rainwater must run into a channeled drainage ditch. This drainage will then run into a Solid Settling Basin (SSB) to filter solid from liquid waste. This solid waste will be collected daily and added to compost or can be used as fuel in a manure to energy system. Following the separation, the liquid waste from the SSB is pumped via 3â&#x20AC;? PVC piping

Figure 12. Typical layout of a pump VTS. 17

Normalized ($84/hr)

# Cattle

VTA Area (ha)

Hours

Pumped slope VTA

285

2.0

$4,368

$4,137

$17,994

$30,820

$108

Pumped slope VTA

780

2.0

$5,880

$27,852

$2,024

$35,755

$46

Pumped slope VTA

300

1.2

239

$20,076

$27,519

$51,889

$173

Pumped slope VTA

665

3.8

$7,560

$8,496

$28,191

$51,462

$77

Sprinkler

210

0.9

$5,376

$3,250

$12,203

$20,829

$99

Sprinkler

800

3.0

$7,392

$5,700

$40,565

$53,657

$67

Sprinkler

450

1.9

$6,048

$35,115

$44,877

$100

Sprinkler

720

3.4

$7,392

$57,060

$79,187

$110

Earthwork

$14,735

Supplies/ Labor

State

VTS Type

Total Cost

head

Table 2. Capital Expenditure for selected VTS in the Midwestern United States64

(to mitigate clogging) to the nearby VTA. Utilizing a drip bris, can increase the pollutant load in runoff and further irrigation system, the liquid effluent is spread evenly onto impair water bodies, degrade biological habitats, pollute the VTA, encouraging the growth of native plants. drinking water sources and cause flooding.65 Given the scale of the piping required for a VTS, a proper location must be determined to ensure efficient use of space. Our team’s site review determined candidate areas for the VTA, which are highlighted in Figure 7. Areas were chosen based on various criteria, including surface permeability, proximity to paddocks and ease of access.

While an effort to cover some paddock areas with metal roofing at the Liniers Market has been made, it is not extensive enough to prevent stormwater pollution. An estimated 10% of the cattle area is covered, mostly sheltering market goers while leaving cattle uncovered. A properly implemented stormwater management system will help reduce effluent runoff and pollution to nearby watersheds and surrounding communities.

A study from the University of Iowa compared the costs of VTS in the Midwest for CAFOs with less than The Capstone Team recommends the implementa1,000 head of cattle. While capital and operating expen- tion of a comprehensive Stormwater Pollution Prevention ditures will ultimately differ in Argentina, table 2 will pro- Plan (SWPPP) in order to prevent further pollution from vides a framework for potential costs.63 entering the Cildañez stream. To follow through on the areas of improvement identified in the SWPPP, a StormThe VTS will be most successful if it is implemented water Management System must be installed to mitigate in symphony with other manure management recom- stormwater runoff. mendations, as a comprehensive waste diversion system will be key to the implementation of a VTS. While Recommendation a viable solution in its own right, a VTS is best utilized as a portion of a larger waste management strategy. EiA comprehensive Stormwater Pollution Prevention ther way, the solid waste will need to be managed, either Plan (SWPPP) must be implemented at the Liniers Cattle through composting or the implementation of a waste to Market in order to prevent the current infrastructure from energy plant. being overwhelmed during a rain event. The SWPPP will be used as a facility guide for managing waste streams in a way that would minimize exposure to stormwater runoff, including the proper handling and storage of manure, secondary containment for storage, loading and unloading operations, structural controls and vegetative buffers, and stormwater management systems. Additionally, the manure collection process needs to be detailed to enBackground sure optimal collection of all manure generated from cattle on a daily basis, so that a minimal amount of process During a storm event, the harmful effects of effluent wastewater carrying manure will enter the wastewater entering the Cildañez from the Liniers Market increases treatment system. This will not only reduce the amount of greatly because the current system is not well equipped waste going into the wastewater treatment system, but to handle the influx of discharge caused by rain. Under will also minimize cost for the operation and maintenance the Liniers Market, the Cildañez is channeled, or piped of the system. and any operational practices at the Market that allows exposure of industrial materials, manure, and other deImplementation of a SWPPP at the Liniers Market will

PROJECT 3: STORMWATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM

have to be accompanied by strict enforcement and reg- implement process and operational improvements. The ulation by UPE CUMAR or Liniers Market management. Market will need to effectively communicate the imporSpecific requirements for stormwater management will tance and scope of the new procedures. be agreed upon with the Market and listed in the plan, Universal best management practices for industry such as monitoring requirements, conducting internal audits at a frequency determined in the plan, reporting and retaining auditable records on site. Periodic auditing, such as onsite visits for operational observations and Washington State, U.S. Requires SWPPPs from water samples should be conducted to ensure compliDischarging Facilities ance with the plan. In Washington State, industrial or other large The SWPPP will be a site-specific, “living” document facility operators are required to fulfill SWPPP for the Liniers Market. The plan identifies industrial acmethods in order to retain a permit for stormwativities conducted at the site and potential sources of ter discharge on site through an Industrial Stormstormwater pollution, any control measures or structurwater Generator Permit (ISGP),69 which is deleal control practices that are used to reduce or eliminate gated through the National Pollution Discharge pollutants in stormwater discharges from the facility, and Elimination System (NPDES) by the U.S. EPA.70 procedures that will be used to comply with the terms Washington State outlines five requirements for and conditions listed in the plan or permit.66 The plan retention and maintenance of the permit.71 First, should also include descriptions of activities onsite, such a site map must be created to identify drainage as the physical features of the facility, procedures for spill and discharge points and determine what onsite prevention, conducting inspections and training of emactivities may contribute to runoff pollution. Secployees.67 The SWPPP will be updated as necessary, ond, an inventory of all materials handled onsite such that if there were any modifications in the market’s are compiled, including whether they would be activities or stormwater control practices, the plan will subject to causing runoff through normal operreflect these changes. ations or from rain runoff. Third, the facility is to list all technological or structural means at the Elements of the SWPPP will include the responsible site used to divert pollution from the storm water. stormwater pollution prevention team onsite, site deFourth, for any pollution that cannot be diverted scription, summary of potential pollutant sources, defrom stormwater, a treatment system must be in scription of control measures, schedules and procedures place. Fifth, it is required at least twice a year; and documentation to support compliance with legislaonce during wet season and once during dry tion. Typically, the process for developing a SWPPP inseason, that an inspection of the facilities is convolves the following steps:68 ducted and practices necessary for the SWPPP are found to be in place. • Step 1: Designate and train qualified personnel to be responsible for the formation, implementation, operation and maintenance of the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan. • Step 2: Assess ALL potential stormwater pollution are cited as covered storage, equipment maintenance, sources employee training, site maintenance, infiltration and the • Step 3: Select appropriate control measures to possibility for detention ponds. Specific to cattle operaminimize the discharge of pollutants during storm tions, best management practices include the frequency events for each of these sources of cleaning holding areas for cattle, avoiding water us• Step 4: Develop procedures for conducting required age during cleaning where drainage is present, ensurinspection/monitoring of activities, as well as regular ing treatment of all wastewater before discharge, proper ground cover for cattle holding areas and containing catmaintenance of control measures. tle to confined area where best management practices 72 Challenges to implementing a SWPPP at the Liniers are implemented. Cattle Market will largely arise in enforcement issues. It would be incumbent upon UPE CUMAR to develop gen- Implementation of a Stormwater Management System eral requirements for the SWPPP and mandate a SWPPP Once a SWPPP has been established at the Liniers for the market. In addition, adherence to the SWPPP will Market and areas for improvement have been identified, require a cultural change for employees at the Liniers infrastructure to manage excess stormwater and effluent Cattle market, including habits, increased communicawill need to be installed to adhere to the SWPPP. The tion of new practices, and possibly a person or persons hired to oversee and conduct internal inspections, and plan may include the use of any or all of the following 19

recommendations. We have listed the recommendations by ease of implementation, starting with the installation of gravity fed rainwater catchment and culminating with a connected and closed loop wastewater management plan.

immediate solution to combat excessive rainwater runoff during rain events at the market. Using the existing roofing infrastructure, a rainwater system can be easily installed and provide immediate returns on investment.

For a simple gravity-fed system, three basic parts are needed: • Gutter/Spout Rainwater capture is an easily implementable and • Piping cost-effective method for reducing runoff during storm • Catchment basin events. This low impact solution has a two-fold purpose: The gutters will collect rainwater runoff from the roof, • To mitigate the runoff of rainwater into paddocks which leads to a spout, which will direct the flow of water and the subsequent reduction in effluent runoff into towards piping. The piping, which is connected to the nearby drainage. building to ensure it does not disconnect during heavy • Captured water can be reused in market operations, flow, empties into a catchment basin, whose size was leading to a reduction in groundwater resource us- determined by the above calculation. age. This system is a cost-effective solution to mitigate A gravity-fed rainwater capture system offers an excessive rainfall. While this system will not be able to capture all stormwater, it will help to reduce the load borne by current drainage infrastructure and reduce liquid effluent found in the paddock area. Rainwater Capture

An in-depth analysis of current roofing infrastructure should be conducted to determine the best installation site for the rainwater system. This can be completed by observing rainfall during a storm event and determining where rain collects and empties off of the roof. Sizing of the capture basin should also be assessed, based on the roof size. This can be completed using the equation:74 catchment area (ft2) x rainfall (ft) x .0623 (conversion factor) = amount of rain harvested

Figure 13. Stormwater management system. Source: ScafoCorporation. “Rainwater Barrels.” n.d. http://www. scafco.com/upload/photos/galleries/large/wt4.jpg . 73

Figure 14: Layout of Liniers Cattle Market with proposed reduced operating area. 20

through phytoremediation.77

Brynkinalt Cattle Farm in Great Britain implements a Stormwater Management System

The Liniers Market may choose to explore a vegetated option, which, beyond the remediative capabilities, offers an increased aesthetic value to the site. Vegetation grown above ditches will act as a further runoff barrier as well. If a non-vegetated solution is chosen, the Capstone Team highly encourages a more robust mapping of current drainage systems. This mapping will help uncover inefficiencies in the current drainage system and help to determine where infrastructure is lacking. There are currently areas where drainage is still terminating into the piped area of the Cilda単ez stream.78 It is our hope that the final recommendation within stormwater infrastructure will help to remediate this issue.

In an effort to lower environmental impacts and save money on operations cost, the Brynkinalt Farm in Wrexham, Great Britain implemented a stormwater management strategy with low upfront costs and easy implementation. The farm installed the rainwater harvesting system on two of their roofed buildings, totaling 1,431 square meters of rooftop. The gravity fed system was able to harvest 479 cubic meters of water per year, saving the farm money by lowering its need for freshwater resources. The total system cost the farm roughly USD $477 and paid for itself in less than a year, based on the cost of municipal water in the area.75

Capture/Connection

To maximize the benefits of a roofing system, it is also recommended that market operations be confined to a smaller area of the market. This will minimize the amount of wastewater that must be managed during a rain event. Based on the average daily number of cattle and the area available for market operations, a 30% to 40% reduction of the operating area of the market is achievable. This can be done by encouraging cattle brokers to share paddocks through the use of electronic signage. Electronic signage would be a significant upgrade for the market because it would also allow for flexibility of market operations based on day-to-day needs. Figure 14 provides a suggested operating area after the proposed reduction. This area should be 100% roofed, and outfitted with the appropriate stormwater management system. Improved Drainage Channeling The current infrastructure found at the Liniers Market, specifically areas in proximity to cattle paddocks, attempts to divert liquid effluent away from drainage. Drainage channels are concrete, which allows for diversion, but offers no ability to mitigate pollution levels from organic waste that is found in the runoff. There are many solutions to the issue of water diversion, the first of which involves the planting of vegetation as a means to lower pollution levels. A study by the Agricultural Research Service (ARS) aimed to uncover the efficacy of vegetated channels as to mitigate pollution in runoff.76 ARS built a 160 foot long vegetated ditch and tracked the levels of atrazine and lambda-cyhalothrin, two commonly used pesticides at this site. Findings were conclusive; only an hour following a simulated storm event, 61% of atrazine and 87% of lambda-cyhalothrin were transferred to the vegetation. Water tested at the terminus of the ditch had decreased to levels deemed non-toxic to aquatic fauna

As noted, current infrastructure onsite is lacking in drainage capability and capture capacity. While potentially the most intensive solution, increased capture capacity, coupled with a connection to a water treatment system, offers the most complete solution to effluent runoff issues at the Liniers Market. Our team recommends a full review of current infrastructure as well as the creation of an infrastructure plan that connects current infrastructure with improved diversion ditches. Furthermore, our team recommends a full SWPPP as a means to uncover potential infrastructure connections already present at the Liniers Market. A properly constructed and managed stormwater system offers the ability to exert a greater control over variables currently out of the control of the Liniers operation team. Captured rainwater provides additional water for the cleaning of paddocks and equipment, while diversion drainage and capture can be connected to additional infrastructure to create a holistic, closed loop waste management system. In order for the successful implementation of the above recommendations, a thorough SWPPP must be completed to determine where the most need exists in current infrastructure. This SWPPP will involve an extensive review of current operations at Liniers Market and may require outside assistance from UPE CUMAR. Once the SWPPP is completed, financial constraints to implementation may exist; a more robust and complete system will undoubtedly be a larger investment than a simpler system.

STRATEGY 2: SOLID MANURE MANAGEMENT Based on conservative estimates done by the Capstone Team, roughly 142 cubic meters of manure is generated on a weekly basis at the Liniers Cattle Market that must be managed.79 Currently at the market, a few pilot programs are in place to deal with this solid waste from paddocks including a preliminary composting practice and the Geotube system.80 Despite these pilot programs, the primary practice to dispose of solid waste at the market is to have it collected with shovels and wheelbarrows and trucked off site.81 Based on an analysis of water samples and an onsite visits, evidence exists that some solid manure is also ending up in the Cilda単ez stream. While liquid effluents are being managed through the projects identified in Figure 15. Manual collection of manure by market employee.82 the effluent management strategy above, this strategy Source: Site visit by Capstone Team. October 31, 2014. specifically addresses solid waste from market operations and sludge produced as a result of wastewater treatment. Composting is an effective and easily implementable solution for preventing solid waste from being dumped into the stream and a manure to energy plant would be a larger-scale solution for the market. These two projects will also use the solid manure as a valuable resource, generating valuable by-products.

PROJECT 4: COMPOSTING PLAN Figure 16: Labeled windrow piles on site.83 Source: Site visit by Capstone Team. October 31, 2014.

Background The market recently began composting on site, which, if implemented properly, would be a sustainable waste management practice. Currently, manure solids are manually collected from paddocks by market employees (see Figure 15), hauled into trucks and placed in piles in a designated location on site. The manure is stored in open air in long piles, known as windrows (see Figure 16). Windrow composting refers to a style of composting in which long, narrow rows of compost are constructed to manage the temperature and moisture of piles effectively, and is a suitable method when working with large volumes of manure. After a review of the current composting practices at the market, the Capstone Team recommends that the market continue with windrow composting, while making key adjustments to the current processes. We will lay out our recommendations for this method of sustainable manure management, focusing on three key areas: com-

post location, compost protection and runoff drainage. The goal of this recommendation is to move the market from the preliminary stages of windrow composting to a system that incorporates best management processes throughout composting operations. We will then discuss the potential for compost certification for the Liniers Market. A certification process could potentially allow for the market to sell excess compost to nearby farms as fertilizer.

Recommendation When evaluating a site for composting, specific criteria must be met. If one or more of these criteria is not met, the market should consider relocating the piles to a more suitable location. The compost piles must be located outside of areas prone to flooding during storm events, as heavy rain and wind may erode piles or spread

compost to unwanted areas. Piles must be located where pumped water is available, as piles may need to be hosed periodically to ensure proper moisture levels are kept. Compost piles must be located on an impermeable surface, such as a liner material that will not allow any manure effluent to leach into groundwater. The piles are currently placed on concrete material; however, considering that there are groundwater resources in the market area, operations must ensure that the base is at least two feet above the seasonal high water table in the event that any cracks in the concrete or permeable areas still exist. During a storm or rain event, there is a potential for erosion and effluent runoff from open piles. The Capstone Team recommends covering the piles with a waterproof plastic tarpaulin to protect the piles during rain events and wind, which may cause the piles to erode, become contaminated, or runoff into the stream. A more long-term solution may be the addition of roofing over the compost location to allow for easier access to the piles. Piles will need to be accessed on a regular basis for monitoring, testing and turning. No barriers currently exist to prevent runoff from compost material to contaminate other sections of the market. To address this issue our team recommends protecting the compost area with vegetative buffers to soak up a majority of the contaminated water that could escape the compost area and keep it from flowing towards other locations in the market or entering the Cilda単ez stream.84 The vegetative area will also act as a buffer to minimize runoff from the market area from entering the compost area. The Cornell Waste Management Institute suggests sloping of the composting site towards drainage in order to divert uphill water away from the compost site or collect site runoff for management.85 Runoff collected in this drainage system should be directed towards an appropriate storage location or holding tank on site86 and can be treated by the wastewater treatment plant or pumped to the vegetative treatment areas.

This amount of manure translates to 1 pile at 2.44 meters high, 4.88 meters wide and 80 meters long, and 8 piles at 2.44 meters high, 4.88 meters wide and 77 meters long. If a space of 5 meters is left between compost piles, to allow more space for trucks and other equipment, 4,600 cubic meters of manure can be stored on site. This amount of manure translates to 1 pile at 2.44 meters high, 4.88 meters wide and 80 meters long, and 6 piles at 2.44 meters high, 4.88 meters wide and 77 meters long. It should be noted that space between the piles will be dictated by the size of the vehicles used to turn the piles. See Appendix B for maximum volume of compost that can be stored on site. Turning, Moisture Content, Carbon: Nitrogen Ratio and Temperature Turning is an important step in composting as it ensures a consistent supply of oxygen throughout the piles to allow for degradation of the organic material by aerobic microorganisms. Turning also prevents the piles from overheating and killing the microorganisms that decompose organic matter. Turning can be achieved by a simple front-end loader or bucket loader on a tractor, which can be operated by market employees. The loader lifts the materials from the windrow and spills them back again, mixing the organic material. It is crucial that a schedule is maintained for turning. The frequency of turning is determined primarily by the type of organic material used and moisture content. Moisture (or water) provides the soluble nutrients for the microorganisms, which are necessary for composting. In addition, moisture content is directly related to oxygen supply in the compost piles. If the moisture content is too high, the pore space available for air is reduced, which reduces oxygen supply as well as the structural strength of the material. In the case of the Liniers Cattle Market, the organic material being used is manure from cattle and horses. Generally, cattle manure has moisture content ranging from 85-90%91 and horse manure has moisture content of 70%.92 Considering that the combined organic material from cattle and horses will initially contain more than 70% moisture, it should be turned every day until the moisture content is reduced to 45-60%, which is the optimal moisture content. Bulking material, such as hay, wood chips, straw, leaves, yard trimmings and other bedding material can be added to reduce moisture content as well. If moisture falls below 40%, water should be added to the compost piles.93

The Liniers Market currently has dedicated a 70 by 80 meter area on site for composting.87 The optimal dimensions of windrow compost piles are 2.44 meters (8 feet) high and between 4.27m and 4.88 meters (14 feet to 16 feet) in width. These dimensions allow oxygen to flow throughout the pile while maintaining temperatures in the proper range.88 We estimate that the amount of manure produced at the market is approximately 142 cubic meters per week.89 Based on the optimal compost The carbon-to-nitrogen (C:N) ratio is the ratio of the pile dimensions and the current area dedicated by the market on site for composting, it is estimated that 6,000 mass of carbon to the mass of nitrogen in a given subcubic meters of manure can be stored on site at any giv- stance. The C:N ratio in composting is especially imen time, with 3 meter space between compost piles.90 portant because the microorganisms that decompose manure into a usable compost product use carbon as a 23

source of energy and nitrogen for building cell structure. Therefore, an optimal C:N ratio is necessary for these microorganisms to thrive. The C:N ratio varies in different organic materials and is also a determinant factor in the frequency of turning. Materials with a high C:N ratio do not have to be aerated as often as materials which decompose more actively and rapidly. Generally, a C:N ratio of 30:1 is ideal for composting.94 Cattle manure usually has a C:N ratio of 19:1.95 If the C:N needs to be increased to the optimum level of 30:1, which will also decrease the foul odor associated with a relatively lower C:N ratio, a carbonaceous material should be added to balance off a high nitrogen waste material. If the odor persists after the C:N ratio has reached the 30:1 limit, a chemical neutralizing agent can also be added to the pile.96 The ideal compost temperature should be between 54-60ºC (130-140ºF). However, in certain cases, pathogens are not killed off completely although they might be reduced to levels that do not cause harm if applied to crops. The USDA National Organic Program requires that pathogens be significantly reduced in compost to be used as a soil amendment in organic crop production. If this relatively more stringent standard is to be followed for a windrow system, it requires the temperature of the compost to be above 54ºC (130ºF) for 15 days with a minimum of five turnings of the compost.97 In certain cases, it may even be necessary for the compost to reach 63ºC (145ºF) to adequately destroy certain pathogens such as weed seeds.98 To determine moisture content and C:N ratio of the compost piles, samples should be sent by the market operators to local laboratories as soon as the pile is formed to understand the manure characteristics, and they should continue to test for these parameters periodically throughout the process. More details about the frequency of testing is available in table 3 of this report. As for the temperature of the compost piles, it can be Test Parameter pH Soluble salts Nitrogen

Range 6.8-7.3 0.35-0.64 dS/m (mmhos/cm) 1-2%

Phosphorous

0.6-0.9%

Potassium

0.2-0.5%

Moisture Content

40-50%

Organic Matter

35-45%

Particle Size

passes 3/8” screen

Bulk Density

900-1,000 lbs./yd.3

Table 3: Typical ranges of test parameters in quality compost Source: Conservation Practices. United States Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service. available at: http:// www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detailfull/national/technical/cp/ ncps/?cid=nrcs143_026849 accessed on November 11, 2014

measured using a probe that reaches deep into the compost. The probe should be left in place long enough to stabilize. Temperature readings should be taken in several locations, including at various depths from the top and sides, as the pile will have varying temperatures at varying locations depending on the moisture content and chemical composition.99 Please see Table 3 below for more information on common testing parameters and the recommended associated ranges of these test parameters. These describe typical characteristics of healthy compost.100 Organic matter refers to the amount of organic material that has been decomposed by microorganisms. The optimal percentage of organic matter is 35-40%.101 Monitoring The operation and maintenance plan of the market should include monitoring and management of the windrow piles throughout the composting period to ensure proper composting processes. Market staff should be trained on proper composting practices. The compost piles should be managed for chemical, physical and biological characteristics and the finished compost should also be tested to ensure that the required decomposition has been reached. 103 The compost material should also be tested for heavy metal concentrations, including arsenic, cadmium, copper, lead, mercury, nickel, selenium and zinc. Furthermore, certain pathogens, which can cause infection or disease, such as yeasts, bacteria, mold, fungi, virus, protozoa, and helminthes may be tested for as well. Pathogens are rarely found in compost at concentrations that would cause a problem in using the compost if the composting process is completed correctly; however, tests are available if it is suspected that there may be a problem.104

Implementing a Composting Certification Program After the compost materials have completely decomposed, the compost can be sold as a soil amendment if properly certified. Soil amendments are materials added to an existing soil to improve its physical properties and function, such as water retention, permeability, water infiltration, drainage, aeration and structure.105 Due to lack of certification in Argentina, compost produced from animal manure cannot be sold for use in agricultural purposes. This condition may hinder the market from being able to make profit out of the compost it produces, which might de-incentivize the market from continuing to compost in the long-run. In Argentina, SENASA provides certification and standards for compost produced from vegetative matter. Currently, this certification body does not provide this

for manure produced from animals. The operation and maintenance plan of the market should include monitoring and management of the windrow piles throughout the composting period to ensure proper composting processes. The compost piles should be managed for chemical, physical and biological characteristics and the finished compost should also be tested to ensure that the required decomposition has been reached, as previously mentioned.106

a certification is being sought or if the composters want to obtain information for their stakeholders. A national compost specification standard in the US does not currently exist; different states choose to test using different parameters and at varying frequencies when determining if the compost can be used as a soil amendment.107 Implementation We recommend that UPE CUMAR and SENASA meet in the short-term to agree on parameters to be tested for and determine national standards to be met for compost produced from animal manure. UPE CUMAR and SENASA shall communicate plans for developing this certification system with the Liniers Cattle Market to ensure that market operators are aware of intended future plans to provide certification for compost from animal manure and allow this compost to be used as a soil amendment in the country.

The Capstone Team recommends UPE CUMAR work with SENASA to 1) set physical, chemical and biological benchmarks for testing parameters to determine whether the quality of compost from animal manure is suitable to be used as a soil amendment, and 2) develop a certification system for compost from animal manure. It is recommended the certification system developed require a similar frequency of compost testing. Using this methodology, composting facilities will maintain their certification if and only if they meet the standards set by the In the next 6 months to one year, UPE CUMAR and certification for the different parameters every time that SENASA shall finalize development of the certification the compost is tested. system and make it available for cattle farmers wanting In the United States, a facilityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s compost is tested if to sell their compost as a soil amendment. UPE CUMAR

The USCC Maintains a Composting Certification Program The United States Composting Council (USCC) is a national organization dedicated to the development, expansion and promotion of the composting industry. The USCC achieves this mission by performing compost related research, promoting best management practices, establishing standards, educating professionals and the public about the benefits of composting and compost utilization, enhancing compost product quality, and developing training materials for composters and markets for compost products.108 The USCC also maintains a certification program, the â&#x20AC;&#x153;Seal of Testing Assuranceâ&#x20AC;? (STA) to certify that compost products have been sampled and tested per their standards. The results of such testing are available upon request to interested parties. To obtain certification, composting facilities need to be held to a set frequency of testing, initially determined based on the volume of compost produced annually by each facility. The following table shows the frequency of testing based on the quantity of compost in tons.109 Based on this table, the Liniers Market would likely need to undergo testing on a quarterly basis if following the guidelines above with windrow composting. The STA Program Rules, which is an agreement document between the USCC and program participant for logo use, highlights the main factors that should be met by the program participant to obtain certification and is a useful reference.110 To provide certification to the composting facilities, the USCC also requires that compost products are anCompost Quantity Frequency alyzed for the following properties: pH, soluble salts, 1-2500 tons 1 per quarter (or less) nutrient content (total Nitrogen, Phosphorous Pentox2501-6200 tons 1 per quarter ide, Potassium Oxide, Calcium, Magnesium), moisture content, organic matter content, bioassay (maturity), 6201-17500 tons 1 per 2 months stability (respirometry), particle size, pathogen (fecal co17501 tons and above 1 per month liform or salmonella) and trace metals (regulated metals 111 including arsenic, chromium, cadmium, copper, zinc, Table 4. Frequency of compost testing based on quantity Source: Seal of Testing Assurance. United States Compost- lead, mercury, nickel, and selenium). A composting faciling Council. 2010. available at: http://compostingcouncil. ity must additionally certify that it is in compliance with all org/seal-of-testing-assurance/ accessed on November 23, applicable local, state, and federal regulations in order 2014 to be certified by the STA Program.112 25

shall immediately work with the cattle market to enhance its composting processes and apply composting best management practices recommended in order to prepare them to meet the standards required for the different parameters and obtain certification to sell the compost in the near future.

gestion similar to the process described in the wastewater treatment section of this report, which occurs when organic matter, in liquid or slurry form, is decomposed by bacteria in the absence of oxygen.119 As the bacteria proliferates, biogas (60% methane and 40% CO) is released.120 This gas can then be recovered, treated and used to generate energy in place of traditional fossil fuels, especially important for Argentina, where roughly 86% of the countryâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s energy comes from oil and natural gas.121 The remaining byproducts from digestion, which are low in odor and rich in nutrients, can also be utilized for various commercial purposes, such as fertilizer, composted or livestock bedding

Since this certification will be the first of its kind in Argentina, challenges exist in determining for the first time what parameters should be tested for and the standards to be set for these parameters. International cases, such as the one mentioned above, can be used as guidance; however, parameters chosen and standards developed should be catered towards what best fits the Argentinian market. Advantages include SENASAâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s experience deAnaerobic digesters are designed to stabilize maveloping similar certification systems in Argentina. nure and optimize the production of methane.122 A facility for digester effluent storage is also required, although some systems use a single cell for combined digestion and storage. While a few different types of digesters are available, the most appropriate for cattle manure is the covered lagoon variety,123 as shown below in Figure 17 and 18.

PROJECT 5: MANURE TO ENERGY SYSTEM

Manure contains valuable nutrients: nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium and sulfur,113 all of which can be utilized at the Liniers Cattle Market in a manure to energy system. While a portion of the manure at the market is being trucked off the premises,114 there is too much of it in high density production areas for it to be useful, as land application of manure nutrients exceeds the requirements of crops in the Pampas region,115 which houses 80% to 90% of cattle in Argentina.116 If manure is used for fertilizer under these conditions, excess nutrients will move through the surrounding ecosystem, enter groundwater and stormwater runoff, and find their way into main waterways.117 Thus, utilizing manure for fertilizer without proper composting would essentially cause the same sustainability problems that UPE CUMAR is working to solve. Finally, because manure is a bulk item, transporting it over long distances is inefficient and uneconomical.118 Manure to energy systems utilize an anaerobic di-

Anaerobic digestion is a mature technology, and its application for manure management has become increasingly popular. As of January 2014, there were approximately 239 anaerobic digester systems successfully operating at commercial livestock locations in the United States,126 with hundreds more operating globally in such countries as Mexico, China, Thailand, Vietnam and South

Figure 17. Covered lagoon digester (schematic and photo)125 Source: AgSTAR: Biogas Handling System. United States Environmental Protection Agency. 2014. available at: http://www.epa.gov/ agstar/anaerobic/ad101/biogas-handling.html, October 25, 2014

Figure 18. Covered lagoon digester (schematic and photo)124 Source: AgSTAR: Biogas Handling System. United States Environmental Protection Agency. 2014. available at: http://www.epa.gov/agstar/ anaerobic/ad101/biogas-handling.html, October 25, 2014 26

Korea.127 In Nepal, there are more than 250,000 smallscale, low-tech manure to energy digesters installed on family farms in urban areas, which are utilized to generate fuel for cooking.128 In fact, a number of operational manure to energy systems in Argentina are already in operation, two of which are located nearby the Liniers Market; the AACREA Dairy Project in the city of Buenos Aires and the Coronel Pringles Dairy Project in Coronel Pringles.129

Anaerobic digestion is a mature technology, and its application for manure management has become increasingly popular. According to the U.S. EPA, as of January 2014, there were approximately 239 anaerobic digester systems successfully operating at commercial livestock farms in the US.131 According to the Global Methane Initiative, there are hundreds more in Mexico,

Captured biogas is then transported via pipe from the digester, either directly to a gas use device or to a gas treatment system for moisture and/or hydrogen sulfide removal. While the manure at the Liniers Market will need to be tested to determine what type of handling system it requires, in most cases, the only treatment needed is to remove excess moisture prior to combustion.130 The biogas can then be used to generate electricity, as a boiler fuel for space or water heating, upgraded to natural gas pipeline quality, or for a variety of other uses such as vehicle fuel. Flares are also installed to destroy extra gas and as a backup mechanism for the primary gas use device. While a variety of gas use options are available, the collected biogas is most often used to generate electricity for on-site use or for sale to the local electric utility. Thermal energy in the form of waste heat, produced during electricity generation, can be recovered as well to heat digesters or adjacent buildings. The Liniers Market must conduct an on-site energy audit to determine its current energy consumption before deciding the most economical use for the biogas. If it is determined that more energy is generated by the system than needed on site, then the market could either sell it to the utility or use it in compressed form for on-site truck fueling. In addition to the biogas, the effluent of the anaerobic digestion process can be used to create a number of useful byproducts. For example, it can be packaged and sold to farms for use as fertilizer, thereby reducing their need to purchase costly commercial fertilizers, which may have a larger environmental impact than using fertilizer from the market. This would create an additional revenue stream, aside from the revenue generated from the sale of excess biogas. In addition, digested solids can be removed from the digester effluent by means of a solids separator. The separated solids are commonly used as livestock bedding, so it can be used on-site for the cattle paddocks or sold to other livestock farms to offset their bedding needs. Separated solids can also be sold for use in landscape products, such as soil amendments, fiber or biodegradable planting pots. This too would create an additional revenue stream, aside from the revenue generated from the sale of excess biogas and liquid effluent (e.g. fertilizer). 27

Loyd Ray Farms Project in North Carolina An example of a successfully implemented, and now operational, manure to energy project is the Loyd Ray Farms project in North Carolina. Much can be learned from this project and applied to the Liniers Cattle Market, specifically which technologies to employ and how to bring in institutional stakeholders and access government programs to help finance and incentivize the upfront capital investment required to build the system. Duke University, Duke Energy and Google collaborated to build, design, operate and finance an innovative waste to energy system on this swine farm, which houses an anaerobic digester that processes hog waste, formerly stored in open lagoons and sprayed on farm fields as fertilizer. The methane generated from the digester is used to power a 65 KW microturbine, which powers the wastewater system at the farm, and the effluent from the digester flows by gravity to an aeration basin, which further cleans the wastewater. The digester and basin together substantially eliminate nutrients, ammonia, odors, pathogens and heavy metals.135 This project represents a successful partnership. It helps the farm manage waste, reduce its electricity costs and is expected to reduce animal mortalities, as replacing lagoon effluent with clean water from the aeration basin to flush the barns will improve air quality in the barns. It provides Duke Energy with the Renewable Energy Credits it needs to meet its renewable energy portfolio requirements, and provides Duke University and Google with verified carbon offsets. However, it is clear that this project was largely possible because state mandates created an incentive, and available grant opportunities encouraged the partners to move forward by lowering up-front capital costs. Nonetheless, the project has already provided valuable lessons about cost sharing, system design, cost reductions and new farm income streams that are helpful in planning manure to energy projects.

China, Thailand, Vietnam, South Korea and other countries.132 Not all of these digestion facilities are extremely capital intensive to build. For example, in Nepal, there are more than 250,000 small-scale, low-tech manure to energy digesters installed on family farms in urban areas, which are utilized to generate fuel for cooking.133 In fact, there are already a number of operational manure to energy systems in Argentina, two of which are located very close to the Liniers Market: The AACREA Dairy Project in the city of Buenos Aires and the Coronel Pringles Dairy Project in Coronel Pringles.134

Implementation

ergy calculations can be found in Appendix D). An estimated cost of a manure to energy system of this capacity would be approximately USD $1.2 million.136 The payback and financing of such system is highly contingent on the electricity prices in Argentina. Because electricity is highly subsidized in Argentina, a subsidy, incentive, or outside financing for this project will be necessary to make this recommendation feasible. In light of this, several options should be considered with the implementation of a manure to energy system. First, since UPE CUMAR is already actively engaged with the World Bank on projects in the region, it should explore financing options with the World Bank, which may be willing to contribute to a sustainability initiative such as this. At the same time, UPE CUMAR should open dialogue with the federal and provincial governments to explore if and how much the governments would be willing to subsidize the project. Alternatively, UPE CUMAR could build a partnership with the provincial utility and a corporate sponsor, which needs to meet renewable energy portfolio requirements or has mandates for verified carbon offsets, as done in the Loyd Ray Farms project discussed above. Once these technical, financing and subsidy issues are resolved, the final design of the project should be approved, permitted and built. Ongoing communication between all stakeholders will be essential to the project’s success.

The first step to implement this recommendation is to gather information and resources on existing applicable manure to energy projects. This will be a good way to understand the common challenges that exist when building a manure to energy project in Argentina, and will also help clarify some of the operational challenges that may appear once the project is already built. Concurrently, UPE CUMAR should also consult with the Department of Farming, Fishing & Food, which has an existing biofuels program. The biofuels program may be able to provide various resources to UPE CUMAR, such as studies on technology and/or feasibility, which would help keep initial soft costs down. In addition, the National Institute of Agricultural Technology (INTA) has conducted substantial research on biofuels and their potential for Argentina, which it can provide to UPE CUMAR, along with other Many manure to energy systems throughout the US, resources. such as the Loyd Ray Farm project, tie directly into a wastewater treatment plant which is also recommendOur preliminary calculations estimate that 10,400 ed in this report.137 This provides an efficient on-site use cubic meters of manure produced annually at the Lifor the energy generated via anaerobic digestion, as it niers Market has the potential to generate approximately eliminates the cost and transmission losses experienced 930,000 cubic meters of biogas utilizing a 1,700 cubic when transporting energy off-site. In fact, many operameter capacity digester. With a 235 kW Generator Set in tional wastewater treatment plants throughout the US place, that volume of biogas can produce an estimated and Europe incorporate anaerobic digestion technology 2,059 MWh/year (more information on the manure to eninto their designs.

STRATEGY 3: REGULATION AND ENFORCEMENT Environmental regulatory standards are fundamental to establishing best management practices that would prevent pollution of watersheds and hold industries accountable for actions that would otherwise degrade water systems. APRA, as the governing body for environmental protection in the City of Buenos Aires, and ACUMAR, as the authority over the basin’s environmental issues, will be instrumental in devising regulatory policies that would serve as a reference point for industry compliance and exercise authority to enforce compliance.

In order to control and oversee the amount of pollution entering the Cildañez stream from the Liniers Cattle Market, ACUMAR must issue a strategic set of regulatory requirements from industries and implement effluent limitations to manage discharge into water bodies. In developing a diplomatic set of policy for watershed management, the concept and elements of environmental governance must be captured to include government, business, and civil society. Furthermore, to promote sustainable development, ACUMAR would be responsible for creating an enabling environment and policies that

not only serve to regulate, but also assist industries in ic chemicals should be regulated as well. Thus, current meeting environmental and sustainability goals, includ- regulations are not specific enough to control pollutants ing composting certifications to incentivize better manure from the Liniers Cattle Market. management practices. Another challenge associated with the criteria in Resolution No. 01/2007 is that the maximum allowable limits were inconsistent with water quality goals of the receiving body, the Matanza-Riachuelo. APRA attempted to address this issue in Resolution No. 03/2009 by revising surface water criteria to be made acceptable for “passive recreational purposes” at the Matanza-Riachuelo. To Current policies on water quality criteria in Buenos support the need for this new resolution, APRA initiated Aires are underdeveloped and are not comprehensive the Integrated Water Quality and Sediment Monitoring enough to address point-source pollution from the Liniers Program to conduct extensive testing at numerous areas Cattle Market. In 2007, APRA developed Resolution No. in the basin. As expected, the Program revealed some 01/2007, which regulates 37 specified pollutants on ef- areas within the river basin which did not meet standards fluent discharge into the Matanza-Riachuelo river basin. for “passive recreational purposes” of the Matanza-RiUsing these pollutant limits, ACUMAR took water sam- achuelo. However, despite APRA’s efforts, Resolution ples at the Liniers Cattle Market in May 2013. The results No. 03/2009 has not yet been implemented as a result from the samples taken showed levels of phosphorus of political and financial constraints and Resolution No. and fecal coliforms higher than the regulated discharge 01/2007 is still the standard applied to regulate water limit stated in Resolution No. 01/2007, proving that the quality criteria. Market was contributing to the pollution of the Matanza-Riachuelo river basin. Recommendation

PROJECT 6: ESTABLISH WATER QUALITY CRITERIA

Although criteria set forth in Resolution No. 01/2007 are critical water quality measures and important parameters for regulating industrial discharge, these criteria are not representative of specific industries. For instance, cattle industries are typically characterized by the generation of large amounts of animal waste, thus, the primary pollutants of concern should be nutrients such as phosphorous, nitrogen, ammonium-nitrate, etc. Hence, not all 37 pollutants listed will apply to the Liniers Cattle market. Additionally, depending on the amount and types of chemicals used in their operations, such as rodenticides (based on records found from the Market), specif-

The Capstone Team recommends that APRA develop both water quality and effluent discharge capacities that are specific to individual bodies of water and industries that lead to contamination of these bodies of water. To develop water quality standards specific for the Matanza-Riachuelo, the project team recommends that UPE CUMAR first conduct ongoing monitoring that would provide a first hand baseline of criteria to be included in Resolution No. 03/2009. Monitoring of the quality of surface watercourses must be added to include 1) the definition of quality goals in watercourses; 2) knowledge of

Figure 19. Cildañez Stream. Source: UPE CUMAR

assimilation and dilution capacity of the receiving body; and 3) maximum permissible limits on discharge. Thus, as a first step, APRA needs to devise a set of standards for surface water that lists maximum allowable limits for “passive recreational purposes”. Upon developing surface water quality criteria, effluent discharge standards would then need to be established specifically for the cattle industry such that they are integral to the updated criteria in Resolution No. 03/2009 for the Matanza-Riachuelo.

Discharge Limit for Surface Water

Parameter pH Temperature BOD COD Solid Sediments 10° Solid Sediments 2 h S.S.E.E Phenolic Substances S.A.A.M - Detergents Free Chlorine Sulfur Total Nitrogen Ammonia Nitrogen Organic Nitrogen Total Phosphorous Fecal Coliforms

Unit °C mg/L mg/L ml/l ml/l mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L NMP/100mL

ACUMAR Resolution No 1/2007 6.5-10 ≤45 ≤50 ≤250 ≤0.1 ≤1 ≤50 ≤0.5 ≤2 ≤1 ≤1 ≤35 ≤25 ≤10 ≤1 ≤2000

A benchmarking analysis was conducted by the Capstone Team on water quality standards set by the U.S. EPA, EU and WHO. In the US, allowable limits for surface water were established under the EPA National Recommended Water Quality Criteria138, while limits for drinking water fall under the National Primary Drinking Water Regulations.139 Likewise, among the European Union (EU), allowable limits for surface water140 and drinking water fall under the EU Directives.141 These standards are established as national regulatory limits for water quality and can vary regionally. The details of this benchmarking analysis can be found in Appendix E and can be used as a reference for setting limits and defining water quality criteria for the Matanza-Riachuelo. Drinking water standards were included as well to use as a guideline for setting drinking water limits. We also recommend that Table 5. Discharge Limits for Surface Water APRA clearly delineate surface water criteria and drinking Source: First Stage of Final Report: Collector chamber liquid effluents design and gauging and sampling. INTA. January 2014. Referwater criteria prior to introducing discharge limits. Separately, the EPA and EU established regulatory limits for effluent discharge which are developed for specific industries based on best available technology to test for pollutants, as opposed to being regulated on a municipal or nationwide scale. Similarly, APRA should develop water quality-based effluent limits specific to the cattle industry to define Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) of pollutants from effluent discharge. TMDLs are established from the calculation of maximum amount of a pollutant that a waterbody can receive and still safely meet water quality standards.142 Defining TMDLs will allow APRA to conduct compliance audits and hold the Liniers Cattle Market accountable to these effluent discharge limits. From the 37 water quality criteria listed in Resolution No. 01/2007, the project team assembled the table below, which identifies pollutants that could potentially be produced from the operations at the Liniers Cattle Market, and hence are more specific to the cattle industry. It is recommended that APRA regulate pollutant loadings of parameters within this list provided. Pollutants that are expected to be generated at higher than ambient levels from cattle operations include Phosphorous, Nitrogen, and pathogens. Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD) is also an important indicator of wa-

ence File: 6204(15)

ter quality. Primary pollutants of concern from the Liniers Cattle market are listed in Table 5 and details of their impacts on water quality can be found in Appendix F. In addition to the parameters included in Table 5, it is also recommended that APRA begin testing and evaluating the Matanza-Riachuelo for potential contamination by hormones and antibiotics in surface water, as they often present in cattle excreta.143 These contaminants are important ecological stressors and could have serious implications for human health if ingested.144

Implementation Development of regulation for effluent discharge limits and water quality criteria should occur in the medium term, on the scale of 1-3 years. The time scale will be dependent upon the duration of the legislative process and policy establishment. After the establishment of the limits and criteria, APRA can assess the particular use of the Cildañez stream and develop guidelines for water quality criteria. Once goals are defined, regulations for effluent discharge for each industry and facility should be further refined. Both regulation controls - water quality goals and effluent discharge

limits - must be complementary. Once the threshold is Recommendation set for what the receiving body along the basin can acIn order to achieve the goals for water quality criteria cept, the maximum discharge for each industry can be defined for the Matanza-Riachuelo, UPE CUMAR must determined. develop more stringent guidelines to restrict discharge Since development of water quality criteria will be of contaminated effluent from the Liniers Cattle Market. heavily data driven, APRA should expand their technical UPE CUMAR should establish a system of permitting to expertise to collect and analyze water data. ACUMAR ensure clear communication of compliance with regulashould then set forth provisions to reflect this data and tory requirements for discharge into public waters. These define what ambient conditions of the Matanza-Riachue- requirements include effluent limits for specific paramelo should be, thus, providing a baseline for remediating and maintaining the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the river. Subsequently, ACUMAR can then CAFOs in U.S. Utilize a Permit System to Enforce regulate effluent discharge from industries along the river. Environmental Standards To determine thresholds for point source pollutants In the U.S., the U.S. EPA has established from the Liniers Cattle Market, the Market should proleading guidelines and enforcement mechanisms vide APRA with quantitative analytical data identifying the of regulations for effluents from cattle operations. types and quantity of pollutants and chemicals present in Currently, the major federal legislation developed the facility’s effluent, including an inventory of waste and by the EPA governing animal waste pollution is the chemicals used. This exercise should also be done as Clean Water Act, which establishes national pollupart of the SWPPP process outlined above. Based on an tion thresholds in order to protect fish and wildlife established set of water quality criteria of the Matanza-Riand provide for recreation.147 achuelo and facility effluent data, APRA should define effluent limits for the Liniers Cattle Market. These limits can The U.S. EPA also regulates effluent limitations be enforced through legislation or through a permitting through a set of guidelines in 40 CFR Subpart N process (such as the NPDES in the US), with strict com§412.30 for all Concentrated Animal Feeding Oppliance monitoring requirements, as mentioned below in erations (CAFO) to meet pollution thresholds set the Regulatory Enforcement section.145 in the Clean Water Act.148 CAFOs are subject to The primary challenge to implementing effluent limitations at the Liniers Cattle Market would likely be enforcement. This will require the creation of new legislation as well as resources dedicated to the oversight of the regulations not only for the Market, but the cattle industry in Argentina at large.

PROJECT 7: REGULATORY ENFORCEMENT Prior to the establishment of ACUMAR, there were no incentives for industries around the Matanza-Riachuelo to minimize pollution going into the river or standards to address environmental pollution and protect people from hazards released into open waters. While there have been efforts by ACUMAR recently to establish policies to recover and preserve the quality of water bodies of the Matanza-Riachuelo Basin through the Comprehensive Plan of Sanitation (PISA), regulatory enforcement has not been fully developed.146 The lack of an adequate institutional framework for environmental pollution standards and lack of enforcement of water quality criteria has allowed the Liniers Cattle Market to discharge pollutants into the river basin. 31

the point-source provisions of the Clean Water Act, and are required to secure a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit.149 NPDES permits include a set of compliance monitoring requirements to control the discharge of any effluents into receiving water bodies from a facility, whether in the form of process wastewater, overflow or stormwater runoff.150 Once a NPDES permit is obtained by a CAFO, it may discharge pollutants, such as manure, litter, or process wastewater pollutants, into the water bodies in the US only at levels below the thresholds incorporated in the permit, through the application of the best practicable control technology currently available.

If a CAFO is non-compliant, enforcement is carried out through settlements, civil penalties, injunctive relief, supplemental environmental projects, and/or criminal penalties.151 These stringent regulations promulgated by the U.S. EPA have led many CAFO’s to mitigate pollution through the installation of wastewater treatment systems, adopting stormwater pollution prevention plans and complying with a set of operational standards, as recommended for Liniers Cattle Market in this report.

ters relevant to the operations, total maximum daily loads (TMDLs) of pollutants, compliance monitoring with auditable records, reporting requirements, inspections and measurements taken to reduce runoff. Upon development of regulatory requirements, there must be sufficient government oversight for enforcement. Therefore, UPE CUMAR should also extend their resource capacity to enforce and monitor compliance throughout the Matanza-Riachuelo.

for more credits as they pollute or install mitigation technology such as wastewater treatment plants or stormwater pollution prevention measures to generate credits to sell. The advantage of using a water pollutant trading scheme is that it allows facilities the flexibility to choose their own pollution prevention technology and practices, provides economic incentives for industries, allows for innovation within the pollution-abatement sphere, and more importantly, helps meet water quality goals.154

To enforce compliance, UPE CUMAR should conduct periodic inspections of the Liniers Cattle Market, Implementation of regulatory enforcement will take similar to the EPA’s method of: time and will be a more medium- to long-term solution, • Reviewing discharge monitoring reports on the scale of 3 to 5 years. The time scale will be largely • Interviewing personnel knowledgeable in market dependent on length of the legislative process. operations To begin developing the water quality guidelines for • Inspecting the processes that generate and treat the Liniers Cattle Market, UPE CUMAR must first identify wastewater pollution sources from the Market and define potential pollutants using scientific data from historical records • Sampling wastewater discharge to navigable waterways and sampling events. UPE CUMAR should then establish reporting requirements for market activities that could be • Reviewing how samples are collected and analyzed harmful to the Matanza-Riachuelo. by the laboratory155

Implementation

Enforcement of these regulations will be key to their successful implementation. Therefore, it is recommended to monetize pollution and place a cost burden on polluters. To combat water pollution, the following strategies can be applied:

In order to enforce and manage compliance, UPE CUMAR should extend its resource capacity through the establishment of an enforcement division specific to the cattle industry. UPE CUMAR should also enhance APRA’s resource capacity to take over monitoring of cattle indus• Command-and-Control: Direct government regula- try compliance and conduct periodic inspections of the tion of an industry or activity by legislation that de- Market. fines what is permitted or legal. This is usually carUPE CUMAR can also implement an escalating fines ried out by “effluent limitations and enforcement”, system in cases of non-compliance with environmental where effluent limitations may be set at a level at regulations in order to force the Liniers Cattle Market to which industries must default to adopting Best take responsibility and observe best management pracManagement Practices to comply. Thus, this option tices. A Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) will require strict enforcement and delivery of fines is an example of a best management practice where onand penalties.152 site stormwater is managed to prevent pollution through • Pollution Tax: Pollutant taxes can be imposed on effluent discharge. Further detail of the SWPPP can be industry polluters for each unit of pollution. The tax found in the Stormwater Management section of the rerate can be set based on the cost or damage asso- port.156 ciated with each unit of pollution and the cost assoUPE CUMAR will likely encounter objection from the ciated with controlling pollution. If the price is higher than control costs, industries will rather reduce Market and other stakeholders in the cattle industry, with emissions rather than to pay the tax. This will serve the argument that conforming to regulations and changto incentivize industries to install control devices to ing operations will be an economic hindrance. In addireduce their pollution and avoid paying hefty tax- tion, the current lack of resources and technical capacity within UPE CUMAR will make it difficult to enforce reges.153 ulations on polluters. As a result, it will be imperative for • Cap-and-trade: An emissions trading scheme can UPE CUMAR, upon implementation of the regulations, to be used in the water quality context to minimize tighten their enforcement responsibilities to ensure that pollution in the Matanza-Riachuelo. Upon estabviolations do not go undetected. lishing a list of regulated contaminants, each industry will be allocated credits, or allowable pollution discharge. Each industry can choose to either pay 32

Conclusion Through working with UPE CUMAR and extensive research, interviews with stakeholders and an analysis of water samples, the Capstone Team has determined that the Liniers Cattle Market is having a negative impact on the Cilda単ez stream through the systematic dumping of waste that includes high levels of fecal coliforms and other pollutants. These pollutants are affecting the lives of millions of residents that live along the river basin. The goal of this project was to address these issues and offer solutions that would prevent pollution from the market from entering the stream.

strategies that would address liquid effluent management, solid manure management and regulation and enforcement. Implementing the manure management system outlined in this report would effectively prevent the pollutants from entering the Cilda単ez.

Moreover, based on the strategies selected, there could also be added benefits such as additional streams of revenue for the market, the city or ACUMAR. Implementing these recommendations would also advance an ongoing dialogue about the impacts of pollutants on human and environmental health in the region. Lastly, Ultimately, the Capstone Team identified a compre- if sources of pollution on the Riachuelo are limited, the hensive Manure Management System as an effective process of true remediation and restoration can begin, solution for the Liniers Market, which incorporates three which is the ultimate goal. Figure 20. Cattle at the Liniers Cattle Market. Source: Site visit by Capstone Team. October 31, 2014.

Appendices Appendix A – Operational Calculations Estimates obtained from data provided on the Liniers Cattle Market website157 Key estimates: • Head of cattle per day

Using monthly records on head of cattle entering the market from January 1, 2014 to August 31, 2014, approximately 6,500 head of cattle enter the market daily on average. Cattle arrival (Liniers Cattle Market, 2014) Aug 14

Jul 14

Jun 14

May 14

Apr 14

Mar 14

Feb 14

Jan 14

Cattle / Month

111,308

123,470

108,729

111,021

117,826

109,867

116,160

141,389

Cattle / day

6,183.78

6,859,44

6,040.50

6,167.83

6,545.89

6,103.72

6,453.33

7,854.94

Average per day

6,526.18

Average per month

117,471

Estimated work days / month

• Average waiting time for cattle

10 randomly selected workdays were used to evaluate arrival times for cattle trucks. Operations begin at 8 am on average, while offloading of cattle begins the previous day at 5 pm until it reaches the optimal capacity of the market. We observed that in 2013 and 2014, 50% of cattle trucks arrived between 7:00-8:00pm, meaning cattle spend a minimum of 10 hours on market grounds.

Liniers Market - Fill Rate Estimate Random days sampled 3/8/2014 16:00 0 17:00 25% 21:00 50% 23:00 75% 5:00 100% 20/01/14 16:00 0 18:00 25% 20:00 50% 23:00 75% 5:00 100% Results Opening of the market Average % Fill 17:20 25% 20:00 50% 22:40 75% 3:40 100%

â&#x20AC;˘ Cattle manure per day

16:00 0:00 1:00 3:00 5:00 16:00 17:00 19:00 22:00 1:00

9/7/2014 0 25% 50% 75% 100% 18/05/14 0 25% 50% 75% 100%

8:00 Hrs 15 12 9 4 10

average stay

We utilized official figures from the United States Department of Agriculture158 and a study conducted by the University of Wisconsin159. In order to increase our accuracy, we ran multivariable sensitivities and averaged the results. We concluded that the typical head of cattle at the market produces between 6 and 10.5 kg per day and that overall, the weekly total manure produced by cattle in the market is between 142 and 236 m3. *Assumptions: - Specific gravity of manure was that of water - Head of cattle/day: 6,526 head of cattle - Cattle manure/day: 15 kg - Average stay of cattle/day: 42% or 10 hours a = average stay of cattle (per day) h = average head of cattle per day m = average manure generated by each cow (kg/day)

Sensitivity Analysis

manure / kg per head of cattle

Average Cattle Stay / Day Â

6 hrs

8 hrs%

10 hrs%

12 hrs

114

143

171

114

152

190

228

143

190

238

286

171

228

286

343

(cattle manure in cubic meter per week)

• Daily cattle water usage

We concluded that approximately 103 m3 of water is consumed daily by cattle at the market. *Assumptions: - Head of cattle per day: 6,526 (h) - Water per day per 100 lbs weight160: 1 gallon – (c) - Average Cattle Weight: 1,000 lbs (w) - Average stay of cattle per day: 42% or 10 hours (a) - Conversion: 1 gallon = 0.003785 m3

Sensitivity Analysis Heads of cattle / day 3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

47.31

63.08

78.85

94.63

110.40

70.97

94.63

118.28

141.94

165.59

94.63

126.17

157.71

189.25

220.79

H20 per day

1 1.5

(m3/day of water consumed by cattle)

Avg. week 538.18 m3

Appendix B - Composting Calculations Maximum volume of composting that can be stored on site were calculated in two ways to account for the potential space needed in between each row for truck passing. Depending on the size of the trucks used in composting operations, the spacing required will be either 3m or 5m. *Assumptions: - Windrow cross section is approximately a semi-circle - Composting site is rectangular - All windrows are the same size161 - Width of trucks are either 3m or 5m (Example figure of windrows162) For a conservative calculation, the volumes of each pile were calculated by using basic shapes that they will replicate. The volume of the body for each pile was attained by calculating half the volume of a cylinder seen in Shape 1 below, given the assumption that the cross section is a semi-circle. The ends of each pile were calculated using a quarter of the volume of a sphere as seen in Shape 2 below. The combination that renders the greatest volume includes rows that are 2.44 meters tall, 4.88 meters wide and run the length of the 80 meters side of the area used for composting.163 The length and number of rows were determined by the 70m x 80m of space designated for composting operations at the Liniers Cattle Market. Depending on the amount of space needed in between each row for onsite trucks to be able to access the full length of each pile, 3 meters spacing between the rows could accommodate 9 rows, while with 5 meters of spacing between the row can accommodate 7 rows.

(Schematic with 3m and 5m spacing between each pile)

For both calculations, the first row would run the full 80 meters length (minus the rounded edges at the ends), and the additional rows (8 and 6, respectively) at 80 meters minus the corresponding spacing of 3 meters and 5 meters, respectively. The total volume that can be stored on site with 3 meters of spacing is 6,369m3. With 5 meters of spacing, 4,848m3 of compost can be stored on site.

Row 1

Radius ( r ) Length (l) Volume of shape 1 (Vc) Volume of shape 2 (Vs) Total volume (V) Radius ( r ) Length (l) Volume of shape 1 per row (Vc) Volume of shape 2 per row(Vs) Volume of each row (V)

Addditional rows

Units m m m3 m3 m3 m m m3 m3 m3

3m Spacing (m3) 2.44 75.12 702.16 30.41 732.57 2.44 72.12 674.12 30.41 704.53

Total volume of 8 rows

5,636.21

Total volume of 6 rows Total volume of compost

m3 m3

6,368.78

5m Spacing (m3) 2.44 75.12 702.16 30.41 732.57 2.44 70.12 655.42 30.41 685.83 4,114.99 4,847.56

Appendix C â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Compost Allowable Limits The New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA) and the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences at Cornell University developed a table showing the typical New York State range for dairy compost parameters and provides a brief explanation of each parameter is important. It is recommended UPE CUMAR and SENASA reference this table included below when identifying the parameters to be tested and developing the required concentration ranges.164 Table C1. Dairy Compost Parameters and typical New York State ranges

PHYSICAL PROPERTIES

Dairy*

Poultry**

Water holding capacity (%)

88-243

88-173

The amount of water that can be retained by compost and is available to plants

Organic matter (%)

18-70

24-54

Material in compost that came from, or is, living matter and is composed of plant residues, microorganisms and humus. Organic matter can often be used to determine the extent of decomposition in a compost pile. Very low organic matter may indicate heavy mixing of non-organic soil matter.

Carbon to nitrogen ration (C:N)

11-19

4-16

A value obtained by comparing total carbon to total nitrogen. This value is one of several factors used to measure the rate of compost decomposition, though it should never be used as the only indicator.

Density (lb/ft3)

38-58

30-60

Provides a measure of how easily air and water can move through a compost pile. Lower means better flow and high means poorer flow.

Moisture (%)

23-53

51-78

Measure of water content. Moisture content changes over time as organic matter is broken down.

Inert or oversize matter (%)

1-11

1-10

Any material that does not have nutritive or chemical value in compost, such as rocks, pebbles, glass, plastic and other debris or matter.

Dairy*

Poultry**

Total Nitrogen (%)

1-3

1-7

A measure of total nitrogen. This value includes both organic and inorganic forms of nitrogen in compost. In mature composts, most nitrogen should be organic, which indicates that a compost is mature.

Organic Nitrogen (%)

1-3

1-7

The fraction of total nitrogen that is chemically associated with carbon in some form. In mature composts, organic nitrogen should explain most of the total nitrogen presence.

Phosphorus (%)

0.2-1

0.3-2

An important plant macronutrient and mineral. In excess, a potential environmental containment.

Potassium (%)

0.2-1

0.3-3

An important plant macronutrient and mineral. Important for water movement into and out of plant cells.

PLANT NUTRIENTS

Calcium (%)

1-6

6-15

An important macronutrient. Component of plant cell walls and enzymes.

Magnesium (%)

0.4-1

0.5-1

An important macronutrient. Important part of plant energy production from sunlight.

Nitrates (ppm)

<2-878

<2-2033

Nitrites (ppm)

<2-3

<2-<2

A form of inorganic nitrogen produced under certain conditions from ammonia that is toxic to plants. Elevated levels in compost may cause damage to plants.

Chloride (ppm)

1376650

270-10471

Plant micronutrient. Important for cellular water transport and plant energy production.

Sulfates (ppm)

<4-898

55-3060

Copper (ppm)

26-572

16-93

Iron (ppm)

110613886

293-10765

Zinc (ppm)

99-349

171-597

Plant micronutrient, but toxic to plants at elevated levels. If copper sulfate is used in agricultural settings, then compost should be tested for copper.

Ammonia

4-18

644-2347

Toxic to plants. In compost, animal excretions are a common source. A source of available nitrogen.

A form of inorganic nitrogen that is readily available to plants.

A form of sulfur, which is a plant macronutrient. Important for general plant functions. Plant micronutrient, but toxic to plants at elevated levels. If copper sulfate is used in agricultural settings, then compost should be tested for copper. Plant micronutrient.

HEALTH CONCERNS

Dairy*

Poultry**

1-4

2-5

A potential health risk and environmental contaminant

Arsenic (ppm)

<6.5-14

<6.5-15

A potential health risk and environmental contaminant

Fecal coliforms (most probable number/gram)

<3-6580

<3-7

Salmonella (most probable number/4 grams)

1.2-3

1.0-1.1

Plant Response

Dairy*

Poultry**

% germination

88-105

9-102

Percent of cress germinating in control vs. compost (diluted to standard salinity)

% growth

57-102

12-113

Weight of cress grown in control vs. compost (diluted to standard salinity). Expressed as %.

0-16

0-12

Weed seeds are undesirable in gardening, potting soils and other applications. Weed seed counts are valuable for ensuring low values.

CHEMICAL PROPERTIES

Dairy*

Poultry**

Cadmium (ppm)

Weed seeds

An indicator of relative health risk from bacteria that grow in conditions matching that of the human digestive tract. Note - many fecal coliforms don’t cause illness, but grow in similar conditions as those microbes that do. An indicator of relative health risk. Note - only select species of Salmonella cause illness, and conditions must be ideal for sickness to occur.

7.1-8.4

6.9-9.2

Carbonates (1=low, 3=high)

2-3

3-3

A measure of acidity. Ideal range for most plants is slightly acidic to neutral (6.5-7.0) Describes the buffering capacity of a compost. Also referred to as “lime.”

Conductivity (mmhos)

1-8

3-22

A meaure of soluble salts. Sodium, potassium, chloride, nitrate, sulfate and ammonia may contribute to soluble salt.

Maturity (1=very immature and unstable, 8=highly mature and very stable)

4-7

1-7

A measure of compost respiration and ammonia production. A mature compost will note have highly active microbial respiration and most ammonia will be volatilized.

Appendix D: Manure to Energy Cost Calculations Total annual manure is estimated on an average of 50 tons per day. The cost of the generator is an average retail price of the selected 235kW GenSet models from Cummins165 and CAT.166 The digester volume of 1700 cubic meters is product of the estimated daily effluent volume of manure and a retention time of 35 days. This system has the capacity to generate 936,000 cubic meters of biogas per year, and 2,059 MWh of electricity a year. Scenario 1 considers the current cost of electricity at USD$0.04/kWh167 and a system utilization factor of 90%. Scenario 2 is calculated with a subsidy of USD$0.08/kWh and a similar system utilization factor. Both scenarios contemplate a useful life of 15 years168 with discounted rate of 5%. Key Assumptions: - 10,400 tons of cattle manure generated per year at 25% dry matter content - Annual Biogas Production: 936,000m3/year169 - Electricity Produced: 2,059,200 kWh/year of electricity170 - Recoverable Heat: 8,339GJ/year171 - Estimated Retention Time of the Digester: 35 days172

*Genset models used for estimation:

Cummins 235kw Biogas Generator set 235 CAT G3406

Estimates

235 kW Generator*

$180,000.00

1,700 m3 Digester

$1,022,548.00

Estimated System Cost

$1,202,548.00

Scenario 1

Annual Electric Revenue

Current Price per KWH

$0.04

Annual KHW generated

2,059,200

Simple Payback (in years)

NPV

IRR

Scenario 2

Recommended subsidy per KWH

New Annual Electric Revenue

Simple Payback (in years)

NPV

IRR

$74,131.20

16.22 $399,131.14 0% $0.08 $222,393.60 5.41 $1,105,821.52 17%

Discount Rate

Useful system life (yr)

Utilization Factor

15 90%

Scenario 2

Scenario 1

Subsidy per KWH

Unsubsidized Year

Revenue

Year

Discounted Cash Flow

Revenue

$0.08 Discounted Cash Flow

($1,202,548.00)

$74,131.20

$70,601.14

$222,393.60

$211,803.43

$74,131.20

$67,239.18

$222,393.60

$201,717.55

$74,131.20

$64,037.32

$74,131.20

$64,037.32

$222,393.60

$192,111.95

$74,131.20

$60,987.92

$222,393.60

$182,963.77

$74,131.20

$58,083.73

$222,393.60

$174,251.20

$74,131.20

$55,317.84

$222,393.60

$165,953.53

$74,131.20

$52,683.66

$222,393.60

$158,050.98

$74,131.20

$50,174.91

$222,393.60

$150,524.74

$74,131.20

$47,785.63

$222,393.60

$143,356.90

$74,131.20

$45,510.13

$222,393.60

$136,530.38

$74,131.20

$43,342.98

$222,393.60

$130,028.93

$74,131.20

$41,279.03

$222,393.60

$123,837.08

$74,131.20

$39,313.36

$222,393.60

$117,940.07

$74,131.20

$37,441.29

$222,393.60

$112,323.88

$74,131.20

$35,658.37

$222,393.60

$106,975.12

($1,202,548.00)

$0.00

Appendix E – Water Quality Criteria Tables Surface water quality standards were benchmarked to guidelines set out by the EU Directive and US EPA. Drinking water standards were benchmarked to EU Directive standards, US EPA, and World Health Organization. Surface Water Standards 173 174

US EPA

Parameter

Unit

EU Directive

Acenaphthene

mg/L

Aquatic Health

Human Health 0.67

Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate

mg/L

0.0012

Boron

mg/L

See reference183

Brominated diphenylether

mg/L

See reference184

Bromoform

mg/L

0.0043

Butylbenzene phthalate

mg/L

1.5

Cadmium

mg/L

0.00045

0.002

See reference185

Carbaryl

mg/L

0.0021

Carbon tetrachloride

mg/L

See reference186

0.00023

Chloralkanes

mg/L

0.0014

Chlordane

mg/L

0.0024

0.0000008

Acrolein

mg/L

0.003

0.006

Acrylonitrile

mg/L

0.000051

See reference175

Alachlor

mg/L

0.0007

Aldrin

mg/L

0.003

Alkalinity

See reference176

alpha-BHC

mg/L

0.0000026

alpha-Endosulfan

mg/L

0.00022

0.062

Aluminum

mg/L

0.75

mg/L

0.0003

mg/L

See reference177

Chlorfenviphos

Ammonia

Chloride

mg/L

8,600

Anthracene

mg/L

0.0004

8.3

Chlorine

mg/L

0.019

Antimony

mg/L

0.0056

Chlorobenzene

mg/L

0.13

Arsenic

mg/L

0.34

0.000018

Asbestos

fibers/L

7,000,000

Chlorodibromomethane

mg/L

0.0004

Atrazine

mg/L

0.002

Chloroform

mg/L

0.0057

Chlorophenol, 2-

0.081

Chloronapthalene, 2-

Aesthetic qualities

Bacteria

See reference178

Barium

mg/L

Benzene

mg/L

0.05

0.0022

Benzidine

mg/L

Chlorophenoxy herbicide (2,4-D)

mg/L

0.1

Chlorpyrifos

mg/L

0.0001

0.000083

Benzo(a) anthracene

mg/L

0.0000038

Benzo(a) pyrene

mg/L

0.00001

0.0000038

Chromium (III)

mg/L

0.57

See reference187

mg/L

See reference179

0.0000038

Chromium (VI)

mg/L

0.016

See reference188

Benzo(k) fluor-anthene

Chrysene

mg/L

0.0000038

mg/L

See reference180

0.0000038

Cobalt

mg/L

Benzo(g,h,i)-perylene

mg/L

See reference181

Color

See reference189

See reference190

1.3

Benzo(b) fluor-anthene

Beryllium

mg/L

See reference182

Copper

mg/L

beta-BHC

mg/L

0.0000091

Cyanide

mg/L

0.022

0.14

mg/L

See reference191

DDD, 4,4’-

DDE, 4,4’-

DDT total

mg/L

See reference192

beta-Endosulfan

mg/L

0.00022

0.062

Bis(2-chloroethyl) ether

mg/L

0.00003

Bis(2-Chloroisopropyl) ether

mg/L

1.4

Cylcodiene pesticides

DDT (para-para-)

mg/L

See reference193

DDT, 4,4’-

mg/L

0.0011

Demeton

mg/L

See reference194

Diazinon

mg/L

0.00017

Dibenzo(a,h) anthracene

mg/L

0.0000038

Dichlorobenzene, 1,2-

0.42

Dichlorobenzene, 1,3-

0.32

Ethylbenzene

mg/L

0.53

Fluoranthene

mg/L

0.001

0.13

Fluorene

mg/L

1.1

gamma-BHC (Lindane)

mg/L

0.00095

0.00098

Gases, total dissolved

See reference199

mg/L

See reference200

See reference201

Heptachlor

mg/L

0.00052

Heptachlor epoxide

mg/L

0.00052

Hexachloro-benzene

Guthion Hardness

Dichlorobenzene, 1,4-

0.063

Dichlorobenzidine, 3,3’-

mg/L

0.00005

0.000021

Hexachloro-butadiene

mg/L

0.0006

0.00044

mg/L

0.00055

mg/L

0.00004

mg/L

See reference195

Hexachloro-cyclohexane

0.00038

0.33

Hexachlorocyclo-hexan-technical

mg/L

0.0000123

Dichloromethane

mg/L

See reference196

Hexachlorocyclopentadiene

mg/L

0.04

Dichlorophenol, 2,4-

Hexachloroethane

mg/L

0.0014

0.077

Dichloropropane, 1,2-

Hydrogen sulfide

mg/L

See reference202

0.0005 Inde-

mg/L

See reference203

0.0000038

Iron

mg/L

See reference204

Isophorone

mg/L

0.035

Isoproturon

mg/L

0.001

Lead

mg/L

See reference205

0.065

Malathion

mg/L

See reference206

Manganese

mg/L

0.05

Mercury

mg/L

0.00007

0.0014

Dichlorobromomethane Dichloroethane, 1,2Dichloroethylene, 1,1-

Dichloropropene, 1,3Dieldrin Di(2-ethylhexyl)-phthalate

mg/L

0.00024

mg/L

See reference197

0.00034

Diethyl phthalate

mg/L

Dimethyl phenol, 2,4-

0.38

Dimethyl phthalate

mg/L

270

Di-n-butyl phthalate

mg/L

0.069

Dinitrophenol, 2,4-

0.069

dinitrotoluene, 2,4-

0.00011

Diphenylhydrazine, 1,2-

0.000036

Dinitrophenols

Dissolved oxygen

See reference198

Dissolved solids

mg/L

250

Diuron

mg/L

0.0018

Endosulfan

mg/L

0.00001

Endosulfan sulfate

mg/L

0.062

Endrin

mg/L

0.000086

0.000059

Endrin aldehyde

mg/L

0.00029

Methylmercury

mg/L

0.0014

See reference207

Methoxychlor

mg/L

See reference208

0.1

Methyl bromide

mg/L

0.047

Methyl-4,6,-dinitrophenol, 2-

0.013

Methyl-4-chlorophenol, 3-

See reference209

mg/L

0.0046

Methylene chloride Mirex

mg/L

See reference210

Napthalene

mg/L

See reference211

Nickel

mg/L

See reference212

0.47

0.61

Nitrates

mg/L

Nitrobenzene

mg/L

0.017

Nitrosamines

mg/L

0.0000008

Nitrosodibutylamine, N

mg/L

Nitrosodiethylamine, N

mg/L

Nitrosodimethylamine, N

mg/L

Nitrosodi-n-propylamine, N

mg/L

0.0000063 0.0000008

0.000005

Nitrosodiphenylamine, N

mg/L

0.0033

Nitrosopyrrolidine, N

mg/L

0.000016

Nonylphenol

mg/L

0.002

0.028

See reference213

See reference214

Octylphenol

mg/L

See reference215

Parathion

mg/L

0.000065

Nutrients

Pathogens Pentachloro-benzene Pentachloro-phenol pH Phenol

Tetrachloroethane, 1,1,2,2-

0.00097

mg/L

0.00017

Tetrachloro-ethylene

mg/L

See reference226

0.00069

Thallium

mg/L

0.00024

Toluene

mg/L

1.3

Toxaphene

mg/L

0.00073

Trans-dichloroethylene, 1,2-

mg/L

0.14

Tributyltin

mg/L

0.00046

Tributyltin compunds

mg/L

0.0000015

Trichloro-benzenes

mg/L

See reference227

Trichlorobenzene, 1,2,4-

mg/L

0.035

Trichloroethane, 1,1,1-

mg/L

See reference228

Trichloroethane, 1,1,2-

mg/L

0.00059

Trichloro-ethylene

mg/L

See reference229

0.0025

Trichloro-methane

mg/L

See reference230

mg/L

See reference217

0.0014

Trichlorophenol,2,4,5-

mg/L

1.8

Trichlorophenol, 2,4,6-

mg/L

0.0014

Trifluralin

mg/L

See reference231

Vinyl chloride

mg/L

0.000025

Zinc

mg/L

0.12

7.4

mg/L

0.001

0.019

0.00027

See reference218

5.0 - 9.0

mg/L

Phosphorus

mg/L

Polyaromatic hydrocarbons

mg/L

See reference220

Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs)

mg/L

See reference221

Pyrene

mg/L

0.83 0.17

Selenium

mg/L

See reference222

Silver

mg/L

0.0032

Simazine

mg/L

0.004

See reference223

mg/L

Tainting substances

mg/L

See reference224

TCDD, 2,3,7,8- (Dioxin)

mg/L

Celsius

See reference225

Temperature

mg/L

See reference216

See reference219

Solids, suspended

Tetrachlorobenzene, 1,2,4,5-

Safe Drinking Water Standards232 233 234 235 Parameter

US EPA Unit

Primary

Secondary

WHO

EU Directive

Acrylamide

mg/L

0.0005

0.0001

Alachlor

mg/L

0.02

Aldicarb

mg/L

0.01

Aldrin and dieldrin

mg/L

0.00003

Alpha particles

mg/L

Aluminum

mg/L

0.05-0.2

0.2

Ammonium

mg/L

0.5

Antimony

mg/L

0.006

0.02

0.005

Arsenic

mg/L

0.01

million fibers per liter (MFL)

Atrazine and its chloro-s-triazine metabolites

mg/L

0.003

0.1

Barium

mg/L

0.7

Benzene

mg/L

0.01

0.001

Benzo(a)pyrene

mg/L

0.0007

0.00001

Beryllium

mg/L

0.004

Beta particles and photon

mg/L

Boron

mg/L

2.4

Bromate

mg/L

0.01

Bromodichlormethane

mg/L

0.06

Bromoform

mg/L

0.1

Cadmium

mg/L

0.005

0.003

0.005

Carbofuran

mg/L

0.04

0.007

Carbon tetrachloride

mg/L

0.004

Asbestos

Chloramines (as Cl2)

*MRDLG=4

Chlorate

mg/L

0.7

Chlordane

mg/L

0.0002

Chloride

250

Chlorine

mg/L

*MRDLG=4

*MRDLG=8

Chlorite

mg/L

0.8

0.7

Chlorobenzene

mg/L

0.1

Chloroform

mg/L

0.3

Chlorotoluron

mg/L

0.03

Chlorpyrifos

mg/L

0.03

Chromium

mg/L

0.1

0.05

color units

Inoffensive

Chlorine dioxide (as ClO2)

Color Copper

mg/L

1.3

Corrosivity

non-corrosive

Cyanazine

mg/L

0.0006

Cyanide (as free cyanide)

mg/L

0.2

0.05

2,4-D

mg/L

0.07

0.03

2,4-DB

mg/L

0.09

Dalapon

mg/L

0.07

DDT and metabolites

mg/L

0.001

Dibromoacetonitrile

mg/L

0.07

Dibromochloromethane

mg/L

0.1

1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane

mg/L

0.001

1,2-Dibromoethane

mg/L

0.0004

Dichloroacetate

mg/L

0.05

Dichloroacetonitrile

mg/L

0.02

1,2-Dichlorobenzene

mg/L

1,4-Dichlorobenzene

mg/L

0.3

o-Dichlorobenzene

mg/L

0.6

p-Dichlorobenzene

mg/L

0.075

1,2-Dichloroethane

mg/L

0.03

0.003

1,2-Dichloroethane

mg/L

0.05

1,1-Dichloroethylene

mg/L

0.007

cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene

mg/L

0.07

trans-1,2-Dichloroethylene

mg/L

0.1

Dichloromethane

mg/L

0.02

1,2-Dichloropropane

mg/L

0.04

1,3-Dichloropropane

mg/L

0.02

Dichlorprop

mg/L

0.1

Di(2-ethylhexyl) adipate

mg/L

0.4

Di(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate

mg/L

0.008

Dimethoate

mg/L

0.006

Dinoseb

mg/L

0.007

Dioxin (2,3,7,8-TCDD)

mg/L

Diquat

mg/L

0.02

1,4-Dioxane

mg/L

0.05

Edetic acid

mg/L

0.6

Endrin

mg/L

0.0006

Endothall

mg/L

0.1

Endrin

mg/L

0.002

Epichlorohydrin

mg/L

0.0004

0.0001

Ethylbenzene

mg/L

0.7

0.3

Ethylene dibromide

mg/L

Fenoprop

mg/L

0.009

Fluoride

mg/L

1.5

Foaming Agents

mg/L

0.5

Glyphosate

mg/L

0.7

Heptachlor

mg/L

Heptachlor epoxide

mg/L

Hexachlorobenzene

mg/L

Hexachlorobutadiene

mg/L

0.0006

Hexachlorocyclopentadiene

mg/L

0.05

Hydroxyatrazine

mg/L

0.2

0.3

0.2

Iron

Isoproturon

mg/L

0.009

Lead

mg/L

0.01

Lindane

mg/L

0.0002

0.002

Manganese

mg/L

0.05

MCPA

mg/L

0.002

Mecoprop

mg/L

0.01

Mercury

mg/L

0.002

0.006

0.001

Methoxychlor

mg/L

0.04

0.02

Metolachlor

mg/L

0.01

Microcystin-LR

mg/L

0.001

Molinate

mg/L

0.006

Monochloramine

mg/L

Monochloroacetate

mg/L

0.02

Nickel

mg/L

0.07

0.02

Nitrate (as NO3-)

mg/L

Nitrilotriacetic acid

mg/L

0.2

Nitrite (as NO2-)

mg/L

0.5

N-Nitrosodimethylamine

mg/L

0.0001

Threshold Odor Number (TON)

Inoffensive

Oxamyl (Vydate)

mg/L

0.2

Pendimethalin

mg/L

0.02

Pentachlorophenol

Odor

mg/L

0.009

Pesticides

0.0001

Picloram

mg/L

0.5

6.5-8.5

Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs)

mg/L

Radium 226 and Radium 228 (combined)

mg/L

Selenium

mg/L

0.05

0.04

0.01

Silver

mg/L

0.1

Simazine

mg/L

0.004

0.002

Sodium

mg/L

200

Sodium dichloroisocyanurate

mg/L

Sodium dichloroisocyanurate

mg/L

Styrene

mg/L

0.1

0.02

Sulfate

mg/L

250

2,4,5-T

mg/L

0.009

Inoffensive

Terbuthylazine

mg/L

0.007

Tetrachloroethane

mg/L

0.04

Tetrachloroethylene

mg/L

0.01

Thallium

mg/L

0.0005

Toluene

mg/L

0.7

Total Dissolved Solids (TDS)

mg/L

500

Toxaphene

mg/L

2,4,5-TP (Silvex)

mg/L

0.05

Trichloroacetate

mg/L

0.2

1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene

mg/L

0.07

Taste

Trichloroethane

mg/L

0.02

1,1,1-Trichloroethane

mg/L

0.2

1,1,2-Trichloroethane

mg/L

0.003

Trichloroethylene

mg/L

0.01

2,4,6-Trichlorophenol

mg/L

0.2

Trifluralin

mg/L

Trihalomethanes

mg/L

0.1

Trutuim

7000 Bq/L

10000 Bq/L

Turbidity

0.1-1 NTU

0.5-1 NTU

Inoffensive

Uranium

mg/L

0.03

Vinyl chloride

mg/L

0.0003

0.0005

Xylenes

mg/L

0.5

Zinc

mg/L

Cryptosporidium

mg/L

Enterococci

mg/L

Giardia lamblia

mg/L

Heterotrophic plate count (HPC)

mg/L

n/a

Legionella

mg/L

Total Coliforms (including fecal coliform and E. coli)

mg/L

Non-detectable

Turbidity

mg/L

n/a

Viruses (enteric)

mg/L

*Maximum Residual Disinfectant Level Goal (MRDLG) - The level of a drinking water disinfectant below which there is no known or expected risk to health. MRDLGs do not reflect the benefits of the use of disinfectants to control microbial contaminants.)

Appendix F – Key Pollutants from livestock operations and animal manure Primary pollutants of concern from the cattle market are similar to those of livestock operations and animal manure. Below is a table from a US EPA literature review of contaminants in livestock and poultry manure and their implications for water quality.236 Pollutant

Description of Pollutant

Pathways to the Environment

Potential Impacts

Nitrogen

Organic forms (e.g., urea) and inorganic forms (e.g., ammonium and nitrate) in manure may be assimilated by plants and algae.

Overland discharge, leachate into ground, atmospheric deposition as ammonia

Eutrophication and harmful algal blooms (HABs), Ammonia toxicity to aquatic life, Nitrate linked to methemoglobinemia

Phosphorus

As manure ages, phosphorus mineralizes to inorganic phosphate compounds that may be assimilated by plants.

Overland discharge, leachate into ground water (water soluble forms)

Eutrophication and harmful algal blooms (HABs)

Potassium

Most potassium in manure is in an organic form available for plant assimilation; it can also be stored in soil for future plant uptake.

Overland discharge, leachate into ground water (water soluble forms)

Increased salinity in surface water and ground water

Organic Compounds

Carbon-based compounds decomposed by microorganisms. Creates biochemical oxygen demand because decomposition consumes dissolved oxygen in water.

Overland discharge, leachate into ground water

Eutrophication and HABs, Dissolved oxygen depletion and potentially anoxia, Decreased aquatic biodiversity

Solids

Includes manure, feed, bedding, hair, feathers and dead livestock.

Overland discharge, atmospheric deposition

Turbidity, Siltation

Salts

Includes cations (sodium, potassium, calcium and magnesium) and anions (chloride, sulfate, bicarbonate, carbonate and nitrate)

Overland discharge, leachate into ground water

Reduction in aquatic life, Increased soil salinity, Increased drinking water treatment costs

Trace Elements

Includes feed additives (arsenic, copper, selenium, zinc, cadmium), trace metals (molybdenum, nickel, lead, iron, manganese, aluminium), and pesticide ingredients (boron).

Overland discharge, leachate into ground water

Aquatic toxicity at elevated concentrations

Volatile Compounds Including Greenhouse Gases

Includes carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrogen sulfide and ammonia gases generated during manure decomposition.

Inhalation, atmospheric depositon of ammonia

Eutrophication, Human health effects, Climate change

Pathogens

Includes a range of disease causing organisms, including bacteria, viruses, protozoa, fungi, prions and helminths.

Overland discharge, potential growth in receiving waters

Animal, human health effects

Antimicrobials

Includes antibiotics and vaccines used for therapeutic and growth promotion purposes.

Overland discharge, leachate into ground water, atmospheric depostion

Facilitates the growth of antimicrobial resistance, Unknown human health and aqautic life effects

Hormones

Includes natural and synthetic hormones used to promote animal growth and control reproductive cycles.

Overland discharge, leachate into ground water

Endocrine disruption in fish, Unknown human heath effects

Other pollutants

Includes pesticides, soaps and disinfectants.

Overland discharge, leachate into ground water

Unknown human and ecological health effects, Potential endocrine disruption in aqauatic organisms.

Endnotes 1 Queck, Paul. Argentina Provides a Lesson on How to Ruin a Meat Market. Beef Magazine. 2013. available at: http:// beefmagazine.com/beef-exports/argentina-provides-lesson-how-ruin-beef-industry accessed on November 1, 2014 2 Hilbert, Joseph; Panichelli, Luis; Finster, Laura; Berra, Guillermo; Crespo, Diana; Gropelli, Eduardo. Methane to Markets. Argentina Profile. Animal Waste Management Methane Emissions. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA). 2006. available at: https://www.globalmethane.org/documents/ag_cap_argentina.pdf accessed on October 23, 2014 3 Reference Appendix B of this report. 4 Queck, Paul. Argentina Provides a Lesson on How to Ruin a Meat Market. Beef Magazine. 2013. available at: http:// beefmagazine.com/beef-exports/argentina-provides-lesson-how-ruin-beef-industry accessed on November 1, 2014 5 Joseph, Ken. Argentina Livestock and Products Annual. USDA Foreign Agricultural Service. 2014. available at: http://gain.fas.usda.gov/Recent%20GAIN%20Publications/Livestock%20and%20Products%20Annual_Buenos%20Aires_Argentina_9-10-2014.pdf accessed on October 15, 2014 6 Joseph, Ken. Argentina Livestock and Products Annual. USDA Foreign Agricultural Service. 2014. available at: http://gain.fas.usda.gov/Recent%20GAIN%20Publications/Livestock%20and%20Products%20Annual_Buenos%20Aires_Argentina_9-10-2014.pdf accessed on October 15, 2014 7 Joseph, Ken. Argentina Livestock and Products Annual. USDA Foreign Agricultural Service. 2014. available at: http://gain.fas.usda.gov/Recent%20GAIN%20Publications/Livestock%20and%20Products%20Annual_Buenos%20Aires_Argentina_9-10-2014.pdf accessed on October 15, 2014 8 Buenos Aires Population 2013. 2013. available at: http://www.worldpopulationstatistics.com/buenos-aires-population-2013/ accessed on October 10, 2014 9 Historia del Mercado de Liniers. Mercado de Liniers. 2009. available at: http://www.mercadodeliniers.com.ar/dll/institucional1.dll/insthist000001 accessed on October 15, 2014 10 Blacksmith Institute. The Worlds Worst 2013: Top Ten Toxic Threats, Cleanup, Progress, and Ongoing Challenges. available at: http://www.worstpolluted.org/docs/TopTenThreats2013.pdf accessed on November 10, 2014 11 Matanza-Riachuelo, Argentina. Green Cross Switzerland. 2014. available at: http://www.greencross.ch/en/news-info-en/case-studies/environmental-reports/ten-most-polluted-places-2013/2013/matanza-riachuelo-argentina.html accessed 49

on November 10, 2014 12 Rights-Based Approach: FARM networking for a sustainable and democratic Matanza-Riachuelo Basin. Fundacion Ambiente y Recursos Naturales 13 Matanza-Riachuelo, Argentina. Green Cross Switzerland. 2014. available at: http://www.greencross.ch/en/news-info-en/case-studies/environmental-reports/ten-most-polluted-places-2013/2013/matanza-riachuelo-argentina.html accessed on November 10, 2014 14 Project Appraisal Document on a Proposed Adaptable Program Loan in the Amount of US$840 Million to the Argentine Republic for the Matanza-Riachuelo Basin Sustainable Development Project Phase 1 (APLI) in Support of the First Phase of the Matanza-Riachuelo Basin Sustainable Development Program. Sustainable Development Department. The World Bank. 2009. available at: http://www-wds.worldbank.org/external/default/WDSContentServer/WDSP/IB/2009/05/19/000333037_2 0090519030356/Rendered/PDF/484430PAD0P105101Official0Use0Only1.pdf accessed on October 15, 2014 15 Rights-Based Approach: FARM networking for a sustainable and democratic Matanza-Riachuelo Basin. Fundacion Ambiente y Recursos Naturales 16 Project Appraisal Document on a Proposed Adaptable Program Loan in the Amount of US$840 Million to the Argentine Republic for the Matanza-Riachuelo Basin Sustainable Development Project Phase 1 (APLI) in Support of the First Phase of the Matanza-Riachuelo Basin Sustainable Development Program. Sustainable Development Department. The World Bank. 2009. available at: http://www-wds.worldbank.org/external/default/WDSContentServer/WDSP/IB/2009/05/19/000333037_2 0090519030356/Rendered/PDF/484430PAD0P105101Official0Use0Only1.pdf accessed on October 15, 2014 17 UPECUMAR. Client Meeting with Capstone Team. 23 September 2014. 18 Falczuk, Bernardo. Surface Water Cildañez Stream Catchment. Atlas de Buenos Aires. 2010. available at: http:// www.atlasdebuenosaires.gov.ar/aaba/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=348&Itemid=188&lang=en accessed on October 2, 2014 19 Falczuk, Bernardo. Surface Water Cildañez Stream Catchment. Atlas de Buenos Aires. 2010. available at: http:// www.atlasdebuenosaires.gov.ar/aaba/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=348&Itemid=188&lang=en accessed on October 2, 2014 20 Stephenson, Angela; Labunska, Iryna. Identification and environmental significance of organic pollutants and heavy metal contaminants found in storm water, urban runoff and domestic sewage channels, discharging to the Matanza-Riachuelo Basin, Argentina 1997. Greenpeace Research Laboratory. 1998. available at: http://www.greenpeace.to/publications/ Riachuelo_tech_note_10-98.pdf accessed on November 1, 2014 21 UPECUMAR. Client Meeting Capstone Team. 23 September 2014. 22 Falczuk, Bernardo. Surface Water Cildañez Stream Catchment. Atlas de Buenos Aires. 2010. available at: http:// www.atlasdebuenosaires.gov.ar/aaba/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=348&Itemid=188&lang=en accessed on October 2, 2014 23 UPECUMAR. Client Meeting with Capstone Team. 23 September 2014. 24 Historia de Mercado Liniers S.A. Mercado Liniers S.A. 2009. available at: http://www.mercadodeliniers.com.ar/ accessed on October 12, 2014 25 UPECUMAR. Client Meeting with Capstone Team. 23 September 2014. 26 Animal Waste - What’s the Problem? United States Environmental Protection Agency. 2011. available at: http://www. epa.gov/region9/animalwaste/problem.html accessed on November 1, 2014 27 Animal Waste - What’s the Problem? United States Environmental Protection Agency. 2011. available at: http://www. epa.gov/region9/animalwaste/problem.html accessed on November 1, 2014 28 Animal Waste - What’s the Problem? United States Environmental Protection Agency. 2011. available at: http://www. epa.gov/region9/animalwaste/problem.html accessed on November 1, 2014 29 Historia de la ACUMAR. ACUMAR. available at: http://www.acumar.gov.ar/institucional/31/historia-de-la-ACUMAR accessed on November 5, 2014 50

30 Plan Integral. ACUMAR. Plan Integral. n.d. 29 October 2014. available at: http://www.acumar.gov.ar/institucional/32/ plan-integral accessed on November 5, 2014 31 Plan Integral. ACUMAR. Plan Integral. n.d. 29 October 2014. available at: http://www.acumar.gov.ar/institucional/32/ plan-integral accessed on November 5, 2014 32 Plan Integral. ACUMAR. Plan Integral. n.d. 29 October 2014. available at: http://www.acumar.gov.ar/institucional/32/ plan-integral accessed on November 5, 2014 33 Matanza-Riachuelo Basin (MRB) Sustainable Development Adaptable Lending Program. The World Bank. 2013. available at: http://web.worldbank.org/external/projects/main?projid=P105680&theSitePK=40941&piPK=51351143&pagePK=51351001&menuPK=51351213&Type=Overview accessed on November 10, 2014 34 City of Buenos Aires. available at: http://www.buenosaires.gob.ar/gobierno/antecedentes accessed on November 5, 2014 35 Tour of Liniers Cattle Market by Capstone Team. October 31, 2014. 36 Tour of Liniers Cattle Market by Capstone Team. October 31, 2014. 37 Tour of Liniers Cattle Market by Capstone Team. October 31, 2014. 38 Mukhtar, Saqib. Module 5: Animal Manure and Process-Generated Wastewater Treatment. Texas A&M University. 2003. 39 Tour of Liniers Cattle Market by Capstone Team. October 31, 2014. 40 Mukhtar, Saqib. Evaluating Technologies for Reducing Nutrients in Dairy Effluent. Texas Water Resource Institute. 2011. 41 Mukhtar, Saqib. Evaluating Technologies for Reducing Nutrients in Dairy Effluent. Texas Water Resource Institute. 2011. 42 Dairy Manure Management: Technologies for Treating Dairy Manure. United States Environmental Protection Agency. 2013. available at: www.epa.gov/region9/ag/dairy/tech/solid-liquid.html accessed on November 1, 2014 43 EG Ingenieria. “Tratamiento de Efluentes.” 2012. http://www.eg-ingenieria.com.ar/referencias.html. 44 Geotube Application Story. TenCate. 2010. available at: www.tencate.com/amer/Images/geotube%20nutrient%20 management_tcm29-12102.pdf accessed on October 15, 2014 45 Mukhtar, Saqib. Evaluating Technologies for Reducing Nutrients in Dairy Effluent. Texas Water Resource Institute. 2011. 46 Depositos Flexibles. n.d. http://depositosflexibles.net/efluentes-de-granja-purines/. 2014. 47 Depositos Flexibles. n.d. http://depositosflexibles.net/efluentes-de-granja-purines/. 2014. 48 Poltak, Ronald. Sequencing Batch Reactor Design and Operational Considerations. Commission, New England Interstate Water Pollution Control. 2005. available at: www.neiwpcc.org/neiwpcc_docs/sbr_manual.pdf accessed on October 10, 2014 49 Activated Sludge Treatment Process. World Bank Group. 2014. available at: http://water.worldbank.org/shw-resource-guide/infrastructure/menu-technical-options/activated-sludge accessed on November 20, 2014 50 Wastewater Technology Fact Sheet: Ultraviolet Disinfection.United States Environmental Protection Agency. 1999. available at: http://water.epa.gov/scitech/wastetech/upload/2002_06_28_mtb_uv.pdf accessed on October 28, 2014 51 Wastewater Technology Fact Sheet: Ultraviolet Disinfection.United States Environmental Protection Agency. 1999. available at: http://water.epa.gov/scitech/wastetech/upload/2002_06_28_mtb_uv.pdf accessed on October 28, 2014 52 Whichard, David. Nitrogen Removal from Dairy Manure Wastewater Using Sequencing Batch Reactors. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. 2001. available at: http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/theses/available/etd-08082001-103610/ unrestricted/David_Whichard_ETD.pdf accessed on November 1, 2014 51

53 Whichard, David. Nitrogen Removal from Dairy Manure Wastewater Using Sequencing Batch Reactors. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. 2001. available at: http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/theses/available/etd-08082001-103610/ unrestricted/David_Whichard_ETD.pdf accessed on November 1, 2014 54 Department of Environmental Conservation. Miscellaneous Vendor Equipment and Cost Information: Appendix A Galloo Island Wind Farm Project, Wastewater Component Cost Estimates”. available at: http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/permits_ej_operations_pdf/15spdesappa.pdf accessed on November 24, 2014 55 Zering, K. Technology Report: Sequencing Batch Reactor. Animal and Poultry Waste Management Center. North Carolina State University. January 2006. available at: http://www.cals.ncsu.edu/waste_mgt/smithfield_projects/phase3report06/pdfs/B.2.pdf accessed on November 24, 2014 56 URS Corporation. Proposal Preliminary Effluent Treatment Plant for the Liniers Cattle Market. March 2006. Reference File: No. 6204/2012. 57 Department of Environmental Conservation. Miscellaneous Vendor Equipment and Cost Information: Appendix A Galloo Island Wind Farm Project, Wastewater Component Cost Estimates”. available at: http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/permits_ej_operations_pdf/15spdesappa.pdf accessed on November 24, 2014 58 Zering, K. Technology Report: Sequencing Batch Reactor. Animal and Poultry Waste Management Center. North Carolina State University. January 2006. available at: http://www.cals.ncsu.edu/waste_mgt/smithfield_projects/phase3report06/pdfs/B.2.pdf accessed on November 24, 2014 59 Vegetative Treatment Systems for Open Lot Runoff: A Collaborative Report. United States Department of Agriculture-Natural Resources Conservation. 2009. 60 Bond, Bradley. Evaluating the cost and performance of vegetative treatment systems on open beef feedlots in the Midwestern United States. Graduate Thesis. Iowa State University. 2010. 61 McGinnis, Laura. Beyond the Pond: A Low Cost, Low Tech Way to Manage Manure. The Beef Site. 2007. available at: http://www.thebeefsite.com/articles/1193/beyond-the-pond-a-lowcost-lowtech-way-to-manage-manure accessed on November 1, 2014 62 McGinnis, Laura. Beyond the Pond: A Low Cost, Low Tech Way to Manage Manure. The Beef Site. 2007. available at: http://www.thebeefsite.com/articles/1193/beyond-the-pond-a-lowcost-lowtech-way-to-manage-manure accessed on November 1, 2014 63 Bond, Bradley. Evaluating the cost and performance of vegetative treatment systems on open beef feedlots in the Midwestern United States. Graduate Thesis. Iowa State University. 2010. 64 Bond, Bradley. Evaluating the cost and performance of vegetative treatment systems on open beef feedlots in the Midwestern United States. Graduate Thesis. Iowa State University. 2010. 65 Developing Your Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan. United States Environmental Protection Agency. 2007. available at: http://www.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/sw_swppp_guide.pdf accessed on November 3, 2014 66 Developing Your Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan. United States Environmental Protection Agency. 2007. available at: http://www.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/sw_swppp_guide.pdf accessed on November 3, 2014 67 Developing Your Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan. United States Environmental Protection Agency. 2007. available at: http://www.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/sw_swppp_guide.pdf accessed on November 3, 2014 68 Developing Your Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan. United States Environmental Protection Agency. 2007. available at: http://www.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/sw_swppp_guide.pdf accessed on November 3, 2014 69 Bartlet, Heather. Industrial Stormwater Generator Permit. Washington State Department of Ecology. 2014. available at: http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/stormwater/industrial/ISGPDraft2015.pdf accessed on November 25, 2014 70 Water: Permitting (NPDES). Environmental Protection Agency. 2014. available at: http://water.epa.gov/polwaste/npdes/ accessed on October 22, 2014 71 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan. Washington State Department of Ecology. available at: http://www.ecy. wa.gov/programs/wq/sand/swppp.html accessed on November 1, 2014 72 Washington State Department of Ecology. Water Quality. available at: http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/Wq/storm52

water/industrial/index.html accessed on November 22, 2014 73 ScafoCorporation. “Rainwater Barrels.” n.d. Source: http://www.scafco.com/upload/photos/galleries/large/wt4.jpg . 74 Rainwater Harvesting. Texas A&M Agrilife Extension. 2014. available at: http://rainwaterharvesting.tamu.edu/catchment-area/ accessed on October 15, 2014 75 Rainwater Harvesting an On-Farm Guide: Rainwater as a Resource. Environment Agency. 2009. 76 Tyler, H.L.; Khalid, S.; Jackson, C.R.; Moore, M.T. Determining potential for microbial atrazine degradation in agricultural drainage ditches. Journal of Environmental Quality. 42:828-834. 2013. 77 Tyler, H.L.; Khalid, S.; Jackson, C.R.; Moore, M.T. Determining potential for microbial atrazine degradation in agricultural drainage ditches. Journal of Environmental Quality. 42:828-834. 2013. 78 Tour of Liniers Cattle Market by Capstone Team. October 31, 2014. 79 Reference Appendix A in this report. 80 Mercado de Liniers S.A. Plan the Reconversion Industrial, February 12, 2014. Reference File: No. 6204/2012 81 Mercado de Liniers S.A. Plan the Reconversion Industrial, February 12, 2014. Reference File: No. 6204/2012 82 Tour of Liniers Cattle Market by Capstone Team. October 31, 2014. 83 Tour of Liniers Cattle Market by Capstone Team. October 31, 2014. 84 Livestock Yards and Manure Storage Areas on Small Acreages. Healthy Landscapes. 2010. available at: http://www. uri.edu/ce/healthylandscapes/livestock/pdf/HealthyLandscapes2.pdf accessed on November 2, 2014 85 Compost Fact Sheet #4. Cornell Waste Management Institute. 2004. available at: http://cwmi.css.cornell.edu/compostfs4.pdf accessed on November 18, 2014 86 United States Department of Agriculture Conservation Practices. USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2010. available at: http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/vt/technical/?cid=stelprdb1080585http://www.nrcs.usda. gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detailfull/national/technical/cp/ncps/?cid=nrcs143_026849 accessed on November 20, 2014 87 Site tour of Liniers Cattle Market by Capstone Team. October 31, 2014. 88 On-farm Composting Methods. Department of Natural Resources Management and Environment. available at: http://www.fao.org/docrep/007/y5104e/y5104e07.htm accessed on November 20, 2014 89 Reference Appendix A of this report 90 Reference Appendix B of this report 91 Manure Production Data. Queensland Government Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. 2014. available at: https://www.daff.qld.gov.au/environment/intensive-livestock/cattle-feedlots/managing-environmental-impacts/manure-production-data accessed on November 13, 2014 92 Managing Horse Manure by Composting. Wayne Soil and Water Conservation District. available at: http://www. wayneswcd.org/Equine%20Ed/1MgHorseManurebyCompostagric.pdf accessed on November 12, 2014 93 Cooperband, Leslie. The Art and Science of Composting. University of Wisconsin-Madison. 2002. 94 Managing Horse Manure by Composting. Wayne Soil and Water Conservation District. available at: http://www. wayneswcd.org/Equine%20Ed/1MgHorseManurebyCompostagric.pdf accessed on November 12, 2014 95 Augustin, Chris; Rahman, Shafiqur. Composting Animal Manures: A Guide to the Process and Management of Animal Manure Compost. North Dakota State University. 2010. available at: http://www.ag.ndsu.edu/manure/documents/ nm1478.pdf accessed on November 15, 2014 96 Augustin, Chris; Rahman, Shafiqur. Composting Animal Manures: A Guides to the Process and Management of Animal Manure Compost. North Dakota State University. 2010. Available at: http://www.ag.ndsu.edu/manure/documents/ nm1478.pdf accessed on November 15, 2014 53

97 United States Department of Agriculture Conservation Practices. USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2010. available at: http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detailfull/national/technical/cp/ncps/?cid=nrcs143_026849 accessed on November 15, 2014 98 Augustin, Chris; Rahman, Shafiqur. Composting Animal Manures: A Guide to the Process and Management of Animal Manure Compost. North Dakota State University. 2010. available at: http://www.ag.ndsu.edu/manure/documents/ nm1478.pdf accessed on November 15, 2014 99 Compost Fact Sheet #4. Cornell Waste Management Institute. 2004. available at: http://cwmi.css.cornell.edu/compostfs4.pdf accessed on November 18, 2014 100 Conservation Practices. United States Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service. available at: http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detailfull/national/technical/cp/ncps/?cid=nrcs143_026849 accessed on November 11, 2014 101 Conservation Practices. United States Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service. available at: http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detailfull/national/technical/cp/ncps/?cid=nrcs143_026849 accessed on November 11, 2014 102 Conservation Practices. United States Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service. available at: http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detailfull/national/technical/cp/ncps/?cid=nrcs143_026849 accessed on November 11, 2014 103 United States Department of Agriculture Conservation Practices. USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2010. available at: http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detailfull/national/technical/cp/ncps/?cid=nrcs143_026849 accessed on November 15, 2014 104 Watson, Maurice. Ohio State University Fact Sheet: Agriculture and Natural Resources. Ohio State University. available at: http://ohioline.osu.edu/anr-fact/0015.html accessed on November 4, 2014 105 Davis, J.G.; Whiting, D. Choosing a Soil Amendment. Colorado State University Extension. 2014. available at: http:// www.ext.colostate.edu/pubs/garden/07235.html accessed on December 1, 2014 106 United States Department of Agriculture Conservation Practices. USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2010. available at: http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detailfull/national/technical/cp/ncps/?cid=nrcs143_026849 accessed on November 15, 2014 107 4.0 Compost Specification for Soil Incorporation. United States Environmental Protection Agency. available at: http:// www.epa.gov/compost/highway/highwy4.pdf accessed on November 23, 2014 108 Mission and Vision. United States Composting Council. 2010. available at: http://compostingcouncil.org/mission/ accessed on November 10, 2014 109 Seal of Testing Assurance. United States Composting Council. 2010. available at: http://compostingcouncil.org/ seal-of-testing-assurance/ accessed on November 23, 2014 110 Seal of Testing Assurance. United States Composting Council. 2010. available at: http://compostingcouncil.org/ seal-of-testing-assurance/ accessed on November 23, 2014 111 Seal of Testing Assurance. United States Composting Council. 2010. available at: http://compostingcouncil.org/ seal-of-testing-assurance/ accessed on November 23, 2014 112 Seal of Testing Assurance. United States Composting Council. 2010. available at: http://compostingcouncil.org/ seal-of-testing-assurance/ accessed on November 23, 2014 113 Cogger, Craig. Manure on Your Farm: Asset or Liability?, Livestock and Poultry Environmental Stewardship Small Farms Fact Sheet. Washington State University. available at: http://www.cals.ncsu.edu/ waste_mgt/smallfarms/Manure.pdf accessed on November 16, 2014 114 Mercado de Liniers S.A. Plan the Reconversion Industrial, February 12, 2014. Reference File: No. 6204/2012 115 Manure to Energy: Sustainable solutions for the Chesapeake Bay region. Chesapeake Bay Commission. 2011. available at: http://www.chesbay.us/manureenergy.html accessed on October 12, 2014 54

116 INTA Methane to Markets Argentina Profile 117 Manure to Energy: Sustainable solutions for the Chesapeake Bay region. Chesapeake Bay Commission. 2011. available at: http://www.chesbay.us/manureenergy.html accessed on October 12, 2014 118 Manure to Energy: Sustainable solutions for the Chesapeake Bay region. Chesapeake Bay Commission. 2011. available at: http://www.chesbay.us/manureenergy.html accessed on October 12, 2014 119 American Biogas Council. available at: http://www.americanbiogascouncil.org/biogas_what.asp accessed on October 20, 2014. 120 Kavuma, Chrish. Variation of Methane and Carbon Dioxide Yield in a Biogas Plant. KTH Industrial Engineering and Management. 2013. available at: http://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:604559/FULLTEXT02 accessed on Dec. 4, 2014 121 KPMG LATAM Energy Institute & Energy Forum of KPMG Argentina. KPMG. 2014. available at: http://www.kpmg. com.br/publicacoes/apresentacoes/webcast_shale_gas_argentina_ENG.pdf accessed on October 30, 2014 122 AgSTAR: Anaerobic Digestion 101. United States Environmental Protection Agency. 2014. available at: http://www. epa.gov/methane/agstar/anaerobic/ad101/index.html accessed on October 12, 2014. 123 Managing Manure with Biogas Recovery Systems: Improved Performance at Competitive Costs. United States Environmental Protection Agency. 2002. available at: http://www.epa.gov/agstar/documents/manage.pdf accessed on October 23, 2014 124 AgSTAR: Biogas Handling System. United States Environmental Protection Agency. 2014. available at: http://www. epa.gov/agstar/anaerobic/ad101/biogas-handling.html accessed on October 25, 2014 125 AgSTAR: Biogas Handling System. United States Environmental Protection Agency. 2014. available at: http://www. epa.gov/agstar/anaerobic/ad101/biogas-handling.html accessed on October 25, 2014 126 AgSTAR: Projects. United States Environmental Protection Agency. 2014. available at: http://www.epa.gov/agstar/ projects/ accessed on October 30, 2014 127 GMI Map of Methane Sites. Global Methane Initiative. 2014. available at: https://www.globalmethane.org/sites/index. aspx accessed on October 19, 2014 128 Forte, Dr. Arquitecta Joana. A glimpse into community and institutional biogas plants in Nepal. 2011. available at: http://my.ewb-usa.org/theme/library/myewb-usa/project-resources/technical/2-1440-a-glimpse-into-community-and-institutional-biogas-plants-in-nepal.pdf accessed on November 2, 2014 129 GMI Map of Methane Sites. Global Methane Initiative. 2014. available at: https://www.globalmethane.org/sites/index. aspx accessed on October 19, 2014 130 AgSTAR: Biogas Handling System. United States Environmental Protection Agency. 2014. available at: http://www. epa.gov/agstar/anaerobic/ad101/biogas-handling.html accessed on October 25, 2014 131 AgSTAR: Projects. United States Environmental Protection Agency. 2014 available at: http://www.epa.gov/agstar/ projects/ accessed on October 30, 2014 132 GMI Map of Methane Sites. Global Methane Initiative. 2014 available at: https://www.globalmethane.org/sites/index. aspx accessed on October 19, 2014 133 Forte, Dr. Arquitecta Joana. A glimpse into community and institutional biogas plants in Nepal. 2011. available at: http://my.ewb-usa.org/theme/library/myewb-usa/project-resources/technical/2-1440-a-glimpse-into-community-and-institutional-biogas-plants-in-nepal.pdf accessed on November 2, 2014 134 GMI Map of Methane Sites. Global Methane Initiative. 2014 available at: https://www.globalmethane.org/sites/index. aspx accessed on October 19, 2014 135 Case Study Primer for Participant Discussion: Biodigesters and Biogas. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Technology Market. 2012. available at: http://www.epa.gov/agstar/documents/biogas_primer.pdf accessed on December 4, 2014 136 Reference Appendix D of this report. 55

137 Please refer to Project 1: Wastewater Treatment Plant 138 Water: Current Water Quality Criteria. United States Environmental Protection Agency. 2014. available at: http://water.epa.gov/scitech/swguidance/standards/criteria/current/index.cfm accessed on November 1, 2014 139 Water: Safe Drinking Water Act. United States Environmental Protection Agency. 2012. available at: http://water.epa. gov/lawsregs/rulesregs/sdwa/currentregulations.cfm#one accessed on November 1, 2014 140 Directive 2008/105/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council. European Commission. 2008. available at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2008:348:0084:0097:EN:PDF accessed on November 5, 2014 141 Council Directive 98/83/EC. European Commission. 1998. available at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:31998L0083&from=EN accessed on November 5, 2014 142 Water: Total Maximum Daily Loads (303d). United States Environmental Protection Agency. 2014. available at: http:// water.epa.gov/lawsregs/lawsguidance/cwa/tmdl/index.cfm? accessed on November 9, 2014 143 Literature Review of Contaminants in Livestock and Poultry Manure and Implications for Water Quality. United States Environmental Protection Agency. 2013. available at: http://water.epa.gov/scitech/cec/upload/Literature-Review-of-Contaminants-in-Livestock-and-Poultry-Manure-and-Implications-for-Water-Quality.pdf accessed on October 12, 2014 144 Literature Review of Contaminants in Livestock and Poultry Manure and Implications for Water Quality. United States Environmental Protection Agency. 2013. available at: http://water.epa.gov/scitech/cec/upload/Literature-Review-of-Contaminants-in-Livestock-and-Poultry-Manure-and-Implications-for-Water-Quality.pdf accessed on October 12, 2014 145 Water: Permitting (NPDES). Environmental Protection Agency. 2014. available at: http://water.epa.gov/polwaste/npdes/ accessed on October 22, 2014 146 Propuesta Preliminar de Usos Para la Cuenca Matanza Riachuelo. Buenos Aires Ciudad. 2014 147 Centner, Terence J,. Enforcement and Regulations: Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations. Missouri Law Review. 2004. available at: http://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3585&context=mlr accessed on October 22, 2014 148 Region 7 Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations. United States Environmental Protection Agency. 2014. available at: http://www.epa.gov/region07/water/cafo/ accessed on November 28, 2014 149 Centner, Terence J,. Enforcement and Regulations: Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations. Missouri Law Review. 2004. available at: http://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3585&context=mlr accessed on October 22, 2014 150 Region 7 Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations. United States Environmental Protection Agency. 2014. available at: http://www.epa.gov/region07/water/cafo/ accessed on November 28, 2014 151 Enforcement. United States Environmental Protection Agency. 2014. http://www2.epa.gov/enforcement/enforcement-basic-information accessed on November 10, 2014 152 Stavins, Robert.Cap and Trade Versus the Alternatives for U.S. Climate Policy. The Energy Collective. 2009. available at: http://theenergycollective.com/robertstavins/27627/cap-and-trade-versus-alternatives-us-climate-policy accessed on December 1, 2014 153 Stavins, Robert.Cap and Trade Versus the Alternatives for U.S. Climate Policy. The Energy Collective. 2009. available at: http://theenergycollective.com/robertstavins/27627/cap-and-trade-versus-alternatives-us-climate-policy accessed on December 1, 2014 154 Stavins, Robert.Cap and Trade Versus the Alternatives for U.S. Climate Policy. The Energy Collective. 2009. available at: http://theenergycollective.com/robertstavins/27627/cap-and-trade-versus-alternatives-us-climate-policy accessed on December 1, 2014 155 Compliance Monitoring. United States Environmental Protections Agency. 2014. available at: http://www.epa.gov/ compliance/monitoring/programs/cwa/npdes.html accessed on November 3, 2014 156 Reference Project 3: Stormwater Management System in this Report 157 Mercado de Liniers. Available at: http://www.mercadodeliniers.com.ar Accessed September 2014. 56

158 Animal Manure Management. United States Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service. 1995. Available at: http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/technical/?cid=nrcs143_014211 accessed on November 1, 2014 159 How much fertilizer do your animals produce? Available at: http://learningstore.uwex.edu/assets/pdfs/a3601.pdf accessed on October 1, 2014 160 Rasby, Dr. Rick. How much water do cows drink? University of Nebraska-Lincoln. 2012. Available at: https://beef. unl.edu/amountwatercowsdrink accessed on October 15, 2014 161 Appendix A. New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection. Available at: http://www.nj.gov/dep/dshw/rrtp/ compost/app123.htm accessed on November 29, 2014 162 Marriott, Emily; Zaborski, Ed. Making and Using Compost for Organic Farming. Extension. 2014. Available at: http:// www.extension.org/pages/18567/making-and-using-compost-for-organic-farming#.VIIISocoRUQ accessed on November 2, 2014 163 On-farm Composting Methods. Department of Natural Resources Management and Environment. Available at: http://www.fao.org/docrep/007/y5104e/y5104e07.htm accessed on November 20, 2014 164 Compost Factsheet. Cornell Waste Management Institute. #4. 2004. Available at: http://cwmi.css.cornell.edu/compostfs4.pdf accessed on November 21, 2014 165 Cummins Website.2014. Available at: http://www.sino-cummins.com/product/cummins-235kw-biogas-generator-set.htmaccessed on October 15, 2014 166 CAT Website.2014. Available at: http://www.cat.com/en_US/products/new/power-systems/electric-power-generation/gas-generator-sets/18487651.html on October 15, 2014 167 Climatescope 2014: Argentina. Global Climastecope Online. Available at: http://global-climatescope.org/en/country/ argentina/#/details accessed on October 15, 2014 168 Investing in Methane Digesters on Pennsylvania Dairy Farms: Implications of Scale Economies and Environmental Programs. Leur, Hyde, Richards. Available at http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/bitstream/45662/2/leuer%20-%20current.pdf accessed on November 15, 2014 169 Electricgaz, Biogas Calculator. Available at: http://www.electrigaz.com/kefir/index.php accessed on October 15, 2014 170 Electricgaz, Biogas Calculator. Available at: http://www.electrigaz.com/kefir/index.php accessed on October 15, 2014 171 Electricgaz, Biogas Calculator. Available at: http://www.electrigaz.com/kefir/index.php accessed on October 15, 2014 172 Guide to anaerobic digesters. Environmental Protection Agency. http://www.epa.gov/agstar/operational.html. accessed on October 22, 2014 173 Water: Current Water Quality Criteria. United States Environmental Protections Agency. 2014. Available at: http://water.epa.gov/scitech/swguidance/standards/criteria/current/index.cfm accessed on October 15, 2014 174 Directive2008/105/EC. United States Environmental Protections Agency. 2008. Available at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/ legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32008L0105&from=EN accessed on October 20, 2014 175 Quality Criteria for Water 1986. United States Environmental Protection Agency. 1986. Available at: http://water.epa. gov/scitech/swguidance/standards/criteria/aqlife/upload/2009_01_13_criteria_goldbook.pdf accessed on October 22, 2014 176 Water: Current Water Quality Criteria. United States Environmental Protections Agency. 2014. Available at: http://water.epa.gov/scitech/swguidance/standards/criteria/current/index.cfm accessed on October 15, 2014 177 Aquatic Life Ambient Water Quality Criteria For Ammonia- Freshwater 2013. United States Environmental Protections Agency. 2013. Available at: http://water.epa.gov/scitech/swguidance/standards/criteria/aqlife/ammonia/upload/AQUATIC-LIFE-AMBIENT-WATER-QUALITY-CRITERIA-FOR-AMMONIA-FRESHWATER-2013.pdf accessed on: October 20, 2014 178 Quality Criteria for Water 1986. United States Environmental Protection Agency. 1986. Available at: http://water.epa. 57

gov/scitech/swguidance/standards/criteria/aqlife/upload/2009_01_13_criteria_goldbook.pdf accessed on October 22, 2014 179 Directive2008/105/EC. United States Environmental Protections Agency. 2008. Available at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/ legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32008L0105&from=EN accessed on October 20, 2014 180 Directive2008/105/EC. United States Environmental Protections Agency. 2008. Available at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/ legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32008L0105&from=EN accessed on October 20, 2014 181 Directive2008/105/EC. United States Environmental Protections Agency. 2008. Available at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/ legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32008L0105&from=EN accessed on October 20, 2014 182 Water: Current Water Quality Criteria. United States Environmental Protections Agency. 2014. Available at: http://water.epa.gov/scitech/swguidance/standards/criteria/current/index.cfm accessed on October 15, 2014 183 Quality Criteria for Water 1986. United States Environmental Protection Agency. 1986. Available at: http://water.epa. gov/scitech/swguidance/standards/criteria/aqlife/upload/2009_01_13_criteria_goldbook.pdf accessed on October 22, 2014 184 Directive2008/105/EC. United States Environmental Protections Agency. 2008. Available at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/ legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32008L0105&from=EN accessed on October 20, 2014 185 Water: Current Water Quality Criteria. United States Environmental Protections Agency. 2014. Available at: http://water.epa.gov/scitech/swguidance/standards/criteria/current/index.cfm accessed on October 15, 2014 186 Directive2008/105/EC. United States Environmental Protections Agency. 2008. Available at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/ legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32008L0105&from=EN accessed on October 20, 2014 187 Water: Current Water Quality Criteria. United States Environmental Protections Agency. 2014. Available at: http://water.epa.gov/scitech/swguidance/standards/criteria/current/index.cfm accessed on October 15, 2014 188 Water: Current Water Quality Criteria. United States Environmental Protections Agency. 2014. Available at: http://water.epa.gov/scitech/swguidance/standards/criteria/current/index.cfm accessed on October 15, 2014 189 Quality Criteria for Water 1986. United States Environmental Protection Agency. 1986. Available at: http://water.epa. gov/scitech/swguidance/standards/criteria/aqlife/upload/2009_01_13_criteria_goldbook.pdf accessed on October 22, 2014 190 Aquatic Life Ambient Freshwater Quality Criteria- Copper. United States Environmental Protections Agency. 2007. Available at: http://water.epa.gov/scitech/swguidance/standards/criteria/aqlife/copper/upload/2009_04_27_criteria_copper_2007_criteria-full.pdf accessed on October 22, 2014 191 Directive2008/105/EC. United States Environmental Protections Agency. 2008. Available at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/ legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32008L0105&from=EN accessed on October 20, 2014 192 Directive2008/105/EC. United States Environmental Protections Agency. 2008. Available at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/ legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32008L0105&from=EN accessed on October 20, 2014 193 Directive2008/105/EC. United States Environmental Protections Agency. 2008. Available at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/ legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32008L0105&from=EN accessed on October 20, 2014 194 Water: Current Water Quality Criteria. United States Environmental Protections Agency. 2014. Available at: http://water.epa.gov/scitech/swguidance/standards/criteria/current/index.cfm accessed on October 15, 2014 195 Directive2008/105/EC. United States Environmental Protections Agency. 2008. Available at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/ legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32008L0105&from=EN accessed on October 20, 2014 196 Directive2008/105/EC. United States Environmental Protections Agency. 2008. Available at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/ legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32008L0105&from=EN accessed on October 20, 2014 197 Directive2008/105/EC. United States Environmental Protections Agency. 2008. Available at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/ legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32008L0105&from=EN accessed on October 20, 2014 198 Quality Criteria for Water 1986. United States Environmental Protection Agency. 1986. Available at: http://water.epa. gov/scitech/swguidance/standards/criteria/aqlife/upload/2009_01_13_criteria_goldbook.pdf accessed on October 22, 2014 199 Quality Criteria for Water 1986. United States Environmental Protection Agency. 1986. Available at: http://water.epa. gov/scitech/swguidance/standards/criteria/aqlife/upload/2009_01_13_criteria_goldbook.pdf accessed on October 22, 2014 58

200 Water: Current Water Quality Criteria. United States Environmental Protections Agency. 2014. Available at: http://water.epa.gov/scitech/swguidance/standards/criteria/current/index.cfm accessed on October 15, 2014 201 Quality Criteria for Water 1986. United States Environmental Protection Agency. 1986. Available at: http://water.epa. gov/scitech/swguidance/standards/criteria/aqlife/upload/2009_01_13_criteria_goldbook.pdf accessed on October 22, 2014 202 Water: Current Water Quality Criteria. United States Environmental Protections Agency. 2014. Available at: http://water.epa.gov/scitech/swguidance/standards/criteria/current/index.cfm accessed on October 15, 2014 203 Directive2008/105/EC. United States Environmental Protections Agency. 2008. Available at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/ legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32008L0105&from=EN accessed on October 20, 2014 204 Water: Current Water Quality Criteria. United States Environmental Protections Agency. 2014. Available at: http://water.epa.gov/scitech/swguidance/standards/criteria/current/index.cfm accessed on October 15, 2014 205 Directive2008/105/EC. United States Environmental Protections Agency. 2008. Available at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/ legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32008L0105&from=EN accessed on October 20, 2014 206 Water: Current Water Quality Criteria. United States Environmental Protections Agency. 2014. Available at: http://water.epa.gov/scitech/swguidance/standards/criteria/current/index.cfm accessed on October 15, 2014 207 Water: Current Water Quality Criteria. United States Environmental Protections Agency. 2014. Available at: http://water.epa.gov/scitech/swguidance/standards/criteria/current/index.cfm accessed on October 15, 2014 208 Water: Current Water Quality Criteria. United States Environmental Protections Agency. 2014. Available at: http://water.epa.gov/scitech/swguidance/standards/criteria/current/index.cfm accessed on October 15, 2014 209 Water: Current Water Quality Criteria. United States Environmental Protections Agency. 2014. Available at: http://water.epa.gov/scitech/swguidance/standards/criteria/current/index.cfm accessed on October 15, 2014 210 Water: Current Water Quality Criteria. United States Environmental Protections Agency. 2014. Available at: http://water.epa.gov/scitech/swguidance/standards/criteria/current/index.cfm accessed on October 15, 2014 211 Directive2008/105/EC. United States Environmental Protections Agency. 2008. Available at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/ legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32008L0105&from=EN accessed on October 20, 2014 212 Directive2008/105/EC. United States Environmental Protections Agency. 2008. Available at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/ legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32008L0105&from=EN accessed on October 20, 2014 213 Ecoregional Criteria Documents. United States Environmental Protections Agency. 2014. Available at: http://www2. epa.gov/nutrient-policy-data/ecoregional-criteria-documents accessed on October 20, 2014 214 Ecoregional Criteria Documents. United States Environmental Protections Agency. 2014. Available at: http://www2. epa.gov/nutrient-policy-data/ecoregional-criteria-documents accessed on October 20, 2014 215 Directive2008/105/EC. United States Environmental Protections Agency. 2008. Available at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/ legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32008L0105&from=EN accessed on October 20, 2014 216 Recreational Water Quality Criteria. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Available at: http://water.epa. gov/scitech/swguidance/standards/criteria/health/recreation/upload/RWQC2012.pdf accessed on: October 19, 2014 217 Directive2008/105/EC. United States Environmental Protections Agency. 2008. Available at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/ legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32008L0105&from=EN accessed on October 20, 2014 218 Water: Current Water Quality Criteria. United States Environmental Protections Agency. 2014. Available at: http://water.epa.gov/scitech/swguidance/standards/criteria/current/index.cfm accessed on October 15, 2014 219 Water: Current Water Quality Criteria. United States Environmental Protections Agency. 2014. Available at: http://water.epa.gov/scitech/swguidance/standards/criteria/current/index.cfm accessed on October 15, 2014 220 Directive2008/105/EC. United States Environmental Protections Agency. 2008. Available at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/ legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32008L0105&from=EN accessed on October 20, 2014 221 Water: Current Water Quality Criteria. United States Environmental Protections Agency. 2014. Available at: http://water.epa.gov/scitech/swguidance/standards/criteria/current/index.cfm accessed on October 15, 2014 59

222 Water: Current Water Quality Criteria. United States Environmental Protections Agency. 2014. Available at: http://water.epa.gov/scitech/swguidance/standards/criteria/current/index.cfm accessed on October 15, 2014 223 Quality Criteria for Water 1986. United States Environmental Protection Agency. 1986. Available at: http://water.epa. gov/scitech/swguidance/standards/criteria/aqlife/upload/2009_01_13_criteria_goldbook.pdf accessed on October 22, 2014 224 Quality Criteria for Water 1986. United States Environmental Protection Agency. 1986. Available at: http://water.epa. gov/scitech/swguidance/standards/criteria/aqlife/upload/2009_01_13_criteria_goldbook.pdf accessed on October 22, 2014 225 Quality Criteria for Water 1986. United States Environmental Protection Agency. 1986. Available at: http://water.epa. gov/scitech/swguidance/standards/criteria/aqlife/upload/2009_01_13_criteria_goldbook.pdf accessed on October 22, 2014 226 Directive2008/105/EC. United States Environmental Protections Agency. 2008. Available at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/ legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32008L0105&from=EN accessed on October 20, 2014 227 Directive2008/105/EC. United States Environmental Protections Agency. 2008. Available at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/ legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32008L0105&from=EN accessed on October 20, 2014 228 Water: Current Water Quality Criteria. United States Environmental Protections Agency. 2014. Available at: http://water.epa.gov/scitech/swguidance/standards/criteria/current/index.cfm accessed on October 15, 2014 229 Directive2008/105/EC. United States Environmental Protections Agency. 2008. Available at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/ legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32008L0105&from=EN accessed on October 20, 2014 230 Directive2008/105/EC. United States Environmental Protections Agency. 2008. Available at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/ legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32008L0105&from=EN accessed on October 20, 2014 231 Directive2008/105/EC. United States Environmental Protections Agency. 2008. Available at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/ legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32008L0105&from=EN accessed on October 20, 2014 232 National Drinking Water Regulations (Primary Maximum Contaminant Level). United States Environmental Protection Agency. 2014. Available at: http://water.epa.gov/drink/contaminants/#List accessed on October 10, 2014 233 Secondary Drinking Water Regulations: Guidance for Nuisance Chemicals (Secondary Maximum Contaminant Level). United States Environmental Protection Agency. 2013. Available at: http://water.epa.gov/drink/contaminants/secondarystandards.cfm accessed on November 5, 2014 234 Guidelines for Drinking-water Quality. Fourth Edition. World Health Organization. 2011. Available at: http://whqlibdoc. who.int/publications/2011/9789241548151_eng.pdf?ua=1 accessed on November 10, 2014 235 Council Directive 98/83/EC on the Quality of Water Intended for Human Consumption. Council of the European Union. 1998. Available at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:31998L0083&from=EN accessed on October 28, 2014 236 Literature Review of Contaminants in Livestock and Poultry Manure and Implications for Water Quality. United States Environmental Protection Agency. 2013. http://water.epa.gov/scitech/cec/upload/Literature-Review-of-Contaminants-in-Livestock-and-Poultry-Manure-and-Implications-for-Water-Quality.pdf accessed on November 2, 2014

Master of Science in Sustainability Management Earth Institute, Columbia University December 2014 61