Pollution Control and Policy Measures for Piggery Wastewater Management...

Pollution Control and Policy Measures for Piggery Wastewater Management in

Thailand

WEPA Group Workshop on Piggery Wastewater Management in Asia

21-22 February 2017Chiang Mai, Thailand

Prakriti KashyapRegional Resource Centre for Asia and the Pacific (RRC.AP)

Presentation Outline

A Glimpse at Thai Piggery Sector

Environmental Concerns of Piggery Waste

Piggery Wastewater Pollution Control: Treatment Technologies

Piggery Wastewater Management: Policy Measures

Conclusion & Way Forward

2

Thai Piggery Sector

Pig farming is a major industrial livestock sector in Thailand

Pig population reached 9.9 million in 2015 (DLD, 2015)

Central region has the highest pig farming

Domestic demand for Pork is high 10.9 kg/capita/year (OECD, 2015)

Export is around 5% to Japan, Hong Kong, Vietnam, Singapore, and Europe

Imports from Germany, South Korea, Brazil, and Denmark

3

Categories of Pig Farm

Based on the scale/size

Pig Farm Category Livestock Unit (LU) Number of Pigs (head)

Smallholder <6 < 50

Small Scale >6 to 60 >50 to 500

Medium Scale >60 to 600 >500 to 5,000

Large Scale >600 >5,000

MONRE

4

Piggery Waste: Solid, Liquid, Gaseous Emissions

Pigs return more than half of feed they consumed as ‘wastes’

Solid waste: feces, feed wastage

Liquid waste: mixture of urine, cleaning water

Gaseous and air particles: NH3, H2S, CO2, CH4, N2O

5

Pig Diet and Pig Manure Characteristics

Pig diet and feeding strategies is one of the important area to lowering air and water pollution from piggery

Reducing particle size= increases the digestibility

Pellet diet=reduces feed wastage and N release

Water:Feed ratio

Feed additives=Phytase enzyme-low P release

Phase feeding (reduce feed waste) Enviropig™

6

Environmental Concerns of Piggery Wastewater

High Concentrations of Nutrients (N & P)

Organic matter loading BOD, COD, VS, TOC

Zinc (Zn) and copper (Cu) in pig diet,

Antibiotics, growth hormones

Pathogens

Water pollution: Eutrophication, reduced DO

Public Health & Aquatic animal’s health concerns

7

Piggery Wastewater Discharge in Thailand

Community, 45%

Industry, 36%,

Swine Farm, 12%,

Paddy,3%

Fish stew, 3%

Aqua culture, 1%,

Nokyoo, 2016

8

Piggery Wastewater Characteristics

Saichol Seanghaisuck, 2015 9

Pig type Solid Waste (kg/Head/Day)

Cooling(L/Head/Day)

Cleaning (L/Head/

Day)

Total Wastewater (L/Head/Day)

Total BOD (mg/L

COD (mg/L)

SS(mg/L)

TKN(mg/

L)

Fattening Pig

2.5 12 12 24 3,500 7,400 4,700 700

Breeding Pig

2.3 26 38 64 800 1,700 900 350

Nursery 0.52 9 11 20 2,500 5,400 3,000 350

Piggery Manure Management

Depending on the manure collection, either in solid form, or wastewater, or as slurry, the selection of treatment technology differs

Solid= composting, fish feed

Liquid =Anaerobic ponds

Slurry= Anaerobic Digestion

10Gonzalez-Soria, 2012

Solid-liquid waste separation

• Wastewater discharged to water body/canal• Land application (flooding, injection etc)

Reclamation Vs. Disposal

Liquid Solid

Anaerobic Ponds Artificial Wetlands

Legal standards

Composting, drying

Land applicationReclamation Vs. Disposal

No Solid-liquid waste separation

(1) digestate

Biosolids (1) Biosolids (1)

Slurry

Liquid Treatment, i.e., anaerobic digestion

Solid-Liquid Separator

Separation of solid and liquid manure before they reach the treatment/ storage structure:

Reduces the nutrient content of manure

Reduces wastewater volume- reducing the initial size of the lagoon or storage pond

Solids can be treated separately using lower cost composting techniques, animal feed supplements

11

Weifng Zhite Environmental Protection Technology Co., Ltd.

Piggery Wastewater Treatment Technology

1. Stabilization Pond– Anaerobic Pond– Facultative Pond– Maturation Pond

2. Anaerobic Filter Tank System

3. Biogas Capture System– Fixed Dome– Covered lagoon– Channel Digester+UASB

12

Piggery wastewater Treatment Technology

Stabilization Pond System

Advantage Disadvantage

Easy maintenance and operation Low capital cost High removal efficiency (80 percent) Allows flexibility of modifying

treatment system

Needs large area Releases odour from methane and

hydrogen sulfide May aggravate soil erosion

13

Piggery Wastewater Treatment Technology

Lagoon/Pond System – Low cost conventional wastewater treatment method

Anaerobic Pond Facultative Pond Aerobic Pond

Depth Fairly deep Deepest Shallowest of the ponds

Stage of treatment

Primary Effluent from anaerobic pond sent here for further BOD removal

Last step in the series of pond treatment

Treatment process

solids and settleableorganics settles to the bottom forming a sludge, which is, digested by anaerobic microorganisms

Top layer aerobic, bottom layer anaerobic: algae growing on the surface provide the water with oxygen leading to both anaerobic digestion and aerobic oxidation of the organic pollutants

retention of stabilized solids and the inactivation of pathogenic microorganisms via heating, rise of pH and solar disinfection

BOD removal

50-85% 80-95% BOD removal= 60-80%, Pathogen removal = 90%

14SSWM

Piggery Wastewater Treatment TechnologyAnaerobic filter tank system: suitable for small and medium farm

15

Primary sedimentation tank Septic tank Anaerobic filter tank Oxidation pond

Advantages Disadvantages Low capital cost Durable structure Needs small space Takes less time in construction

Low capacity of handling wastewater Hard to maintain the system performance Annual bottom sludge dredging is required Consistent monitoring is compulsory e.g. daily bottom sludge scooping No flexibility in modifying treatment system Post treatment required to meet the effluent standard

Piggery wastewater Treatment TechnologyBiogas Capture System

16

Wongsapai, et.al. 2008

Biogas Digester Types used in Thai Pig Farms

• Fixed Dome System • Channel Digester System • Plastic Bag System

• Covered Lagoon System

17

Biogas Capture System

(L-R Top) Pretreatment (wastewater collection tank, sand trapping)(L-R Bottom) reactor, gas-to-electricity generator, sludge drying bed

18

Summary of Piggery Wastewater Treatment Technology Use in Thailand

Treatment Technique Average

Pond System (2‐10 ponds) 42%

Reception Pond (1 pond only)

37%

Solid‐liquid + holding pond 7%

Biogas Digester 6%No treatment at all 7%

19

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Pons system (2‐10ponds)

Reception pondonly

Biogas Digester solid‐liquidsystem+holding

pond

No treatment atall

% o

f fa

rms

Treatment Technology

% Farm Size small scale (1‐500 pigs)

% Farm Size Medium scale (500‐5000 pigs)

% Farm Size Large scale (>5000 pigs)

DLD 2000 surveyTreatment or Storage Only??

Treatment Efficiency of Each Technology


Removal Efficiency (%)BOD COD SS TN TKN TP Cu

Large Scale FarmStabilization Pond 90.51 87.36 89.34 60.93 65.90 75.06 87.02

Covered Lagoon 85.91 84.84 80.44 59.54 61.88 68.94 91.50

Channel Digester +UASB

92.90 92.90 94.75 67.18 66.18 58.86 96.11





Medium Scale FarmStabilization Pond 78.52 68.24 78.02 49.25 49.45 50.93 75.28

Anaerobic Filter 82.34 77.50 81.55 61.96 64.35 62.71 90.00

Cover Lagoon 69.83 75.98 84.48 53.70 48.68 50.12 82.80

Fixed Dome 75.86 65.53 77.26 38.56 36.97 43.58 85.56Channel Digester +UASB

85.47 70.74 82.86 46.72 49.41 30.55 76.96





Small FarmStabilization Pond 77.78 78.02 88.12 61.65 67.02 65.16 88.57

Cover Lagoon 85.18 83.06 85.43 47.61 51.88 66.42 89.28

Fixed Dome 85.06 70.97 80.63 51.98 52.16 67.27 82.72


Policy Measures for Piggery Wastewater Management

• Government Stakeholders & Their Roles in Piggery WW management

MONRE (PCD): Pig Effluent standard and Inspection of pig farms

MOAC (DLD): livestock development MOE (DEDE, EPPO): biogas promotion in swine farms (subsidy

+ technology) Local Administrative Organization (LAO)/TAO: permit/license,

inspection visit ERDI: Biogas technology research and dissemination

23


• Acts1. The Enhancement and Conservation of National Environmental Quality Act, 1992

is the umbrella Act based on this Act, MONRE endorsed swine farms as a point source of water

pollution PCD established pig effluent wastewater standard since February 2002

2. Public Health Act, 1992 This Act authorizes Tambon (sub-district) Administrative Office (TAO) to

close the farm that violates the environmental regulations, which may lead to public health hazards

24


Legal Instruments

1. Pig Effluent Standard

PCD- water Quality Bureau in 2002 – established the pig effluent standard

PCD Inspection & Enforcement Department monitors the pig farms

This standard serves as the first reference point towards minimizing the

pollution from pig farms

Lenient standards?

Loading at the receiving water bodies?

25

Piggery Effluent Standard

Parameter Maximum Permitted valuesLarge Farms(> 600 LU)

Small‐Medium Farms(60‐600 LU)

pH 5.5‐9 5.5‐9

BOD (mg/L) 60 100

COD (mg/L) 300 400

SS (mg/L) 150 200

TKN (mg/L) 120 200

PCD, MONRE

26

Comparison of Pig and Industry effluent Standard (PCD)

Parameter Maximum Permitted values(Pig Farms)

Maximum Permitted values(Industrial Effluent standard)

Large Farms (>600 LU)

Small-Medium Farms (60-600 LU)

pH 5.5-9 5.5-9 5.5-9

BOD (mg/L) 60 100 not more than 20 mg/L depending on receiving water or type of industry under consideration of PCC but not exceed 60 mg/L

COD (mg/L) 300 400 not more than 120 mg/L depending on receiving water of type of industry under consideration of Pollution control committee (PCC) but not exceed 400 mg/L

SS (mg/L) 150 200 not more than 50 mg/l depending on receiving water or type of industry or wastewater treatment system under consideration of PCC but not exceed 150 mg/L

TKN (mg/L) 120 200 not more than 100 mg/l depending on receiving water or type of industry under consideration of PCC but not exceed 200 mg/L

27PCD, MONRE

Non-Compliance Penalty

Case Categories Rate Fees (Baht)Case 1: wastewater effluent parameters do not meet standard*

Analysis result is less than 2 times of standard Analysis result is between 2-4 times of standard Analysis result is between 4-7 times of standard Analysis result is between 7-10 times of standard Analysis result is more than 10 times of standard

<10,00010,000 – 50,00025,000 – 100,00050,00 – 150,00075,000 – 200,000

Case 2: Discharge wastewater without using treatment system

10,000 – 200,000

Case 3: Damage environmental, water body or surrounding area

10,000 – 200,000

28

Complaints About Pig Farms

YearEnvironmental Problems

Odor Wastewater

2014 19 22015 16 52016 19 62017 3 0

Total No. of Complaints 57 13

29PCD


• Guidelines

1. Thai Agricultural Standard TAS 6403-2009 on good agriculturalpractices for pig farm (2008)

Voluntary standards to provide guidance to pig farmers and promote healthyand hygienic pig farming practices reference point for Provincial and RegionalDLD Livestock Offices to accredit and monitor pig farms

It refers to pollution control measures including, safe disposal of animalcarcasses, proper management of pig manure – reducing bad smell in theneighborhood, operation of proper wastewater treatment system meeting theeffluent standard

30

Other Guidelines on Pig Farm Management 2. Feed regulation (Animal Feed Quality Control Act B.E.2525 (1982)

It encompasses; raw material inspection, production inspection, and issuance of Certificate/License to produce animal feed

Inspections are made to ensure quality and safety of feed :

@ the point of feed distribution, inspection at feed shop is conducted and license to sell feed is issued.

@ Port of entry - inspects and certifies the import animal feed ingredient

@ Piggery Farm - check the quality and safety of on-farm manufactured feed, and checks the use of banned substance, illegal veterinary drugs etc.

3. Thai agricultural commodity and food standard: good manufacturing practices for pig abattoir B.E. 2549 (2006)

Guideline developed by the National Bureau of Agricultural Commodity and Food Standards – MOAC

applies to pig transportation from farm to abattoir, humane slaughtering, good hygienic practices and thereafter distributing of pig carcass, pork and products from abattoir to market.

Waste water treatment system shall be in place in compliance with relevant laws31

Summary: Existing Issues in Piggery Wastewater Treatment

Smallholder farms (1-50 pigs) are excluded from the effluent standard commitment

Majority of farms (small, medium, and large) opt for primary levelpond/lagoon system as treatment option

No post-treatment (of effluent from AD and sludge from ponds) for nutrient recovery

Biogas in pig farms as Carbon projects (capital cost, scale of biogas production= CDM Challenges)

Both technology and policy measures targeted as the end of pipe solution than prevention measures

32


Effective Enforcement of Pig Effluent Standard• Regular monitoring of pig farms & publication of wastewater reports• Stricter enforcement of penalties for non-compliance• Non-compliance color code as a warning (red, yellow, green) • Bringing smallholder pig farms into pollution control regime – lenient

standards• New supportive regulation? (Ex. European Commission Nitrates

Directive, 1991)

Closing the resource loop• Mandates for post-treatment technologies to remove/recover nutrient• Reusing the treated wastewater in pig farm operation

33

Proposed Revision of the Pig Effluent Standard

• Cancellation of COD

• Addition of Total P ≤ 35 mg/L (for all scale of farms)

• Addition of Total NLarge Farm ≤ 200 mg/LMedium Farm ≤ 300 mg/LSmall Farm ≤ 350 mg/L



Piggery Wastewater from Environmental Pollution to Climate Solution

• Biogas potential from pig manure Vs Current Success

• Scale of the projects- cluster approach in pig farms-centralized piggery wastewater treatment plant?

• Learning from the past CDM projects on pig biogas

• Explore new Carbon Finance/market regime

35

Morakot Tantichareon

Cow manure, 40%

Cassava wastewater,

17%

Pig manure, 11%

Cassava pulp (cake), 19%

Ethanol wastewater,

7%

Palm oil wastewater,

4%

Tuna industry ww, 1% Pineapple …

Slaughterhouse ww, 0%

Sugar industry ww,

0%

Biogas Potentials: Manures 610 KtoeIndustrial Wastewater 460 ktoe

(> 20,000 million baht a year)


Mainstreaming Sustainability in Pig Production• Sustainable animal production (reducing farm inputs of water,

energy, land area)

• Mandatory separation of dry manure and wastewater

• Ensuring Quality of feed/ and feeding practices and other good farm practices for reducing N&P in pig manure

• Enabling Sustainable Supply chain on pork (low carbon footprint certificate/logo etc.)

36

Conclusion & Way Forward How to Achieve Effective enforcement?

• Start at the Beginning - @ the Pig farm licensing/permit

– Train Local Authorities to consider piggery wastewater treatment criteria while granting a pig farm permit/license

– Develop Detailed technical guidelines/ checklist, tools on pig farm establishment- with consideration to wastewater treatment technology and wastewater and nutrient recovery and recycling plans

37


How to Achieve Effective enforcement?

• Bring Pig farmers onboard: Raise Awareness, provide technical guidance to pig farmers for sustainable piggery wastewater management

• Compliance Assistance Center/Programs: Helps stakeholders to understand and comply with environmental requirements

38

THANK YOU

GHG from Pig Production

Globally, pork production is estimated to emit about 668 milliontonnes CO2-eq, representing 9% of the livestock sector emissions

10% of GHG emission from manure storage and processing(Gerber, et.al. 2013)

GHG emission from Thai swine farm is estimated to be 3.6 kgCO2e/kg live pig

68% of this emission = from swine feed production

32% = occurs at the pig farming stage(OAE, 2012. Annual Report)

40

History of Biogas Development in Thai Pig Farms

1960s:Department of Health, Ministry of Public Health

1960-1992: 6,000 floating drum type bio digesters

1970-1980: National Energy Institute

1980-1989: Department of Agricultural Extension, MOAC

1988-1995: Thai-German Biogas Programme (TG-BP)Upflow Anaerobic Sludge Blanket (UASB) digesters

1995: National Biogas Dissemination Program for medium and large livestock farms Phase I (1995-1998), Phase II (1997-2003), and Phase III (2002 to 2010)

2006-2010: Livestock Waste Management in East Asia (LWMEA)

41

Biogas from Pig Farms CDM Project• Ratchaburi Farms Biogas Project

Name Sor Pimonmas Farm Veerachai Farm Nong Bua Farm

Location Pak Tho District, Rachaburi Province Pak Tho District, Rachaburi Province Pak Tho District, Rachaburi Province

Business Type Piggery Farm Piggery Farm Piggery FarmVolume of Treatment System 26,000 m3 25,000 m3 33,000 m3

Type of Treatment System

CMU-CD (Chiang Mai University Channel Digester)



Electricity Production

2 Mega Watt (approximately 27M Baht/year)

2.7 Mega Watt (approximately 38 M Baht/year)

3.8 Mega Watt (approximately 12.6 M Baht/year)Bunker Oil 2,750 L/dayLPG 2,300 kg/day

Project Participants Thailand: SPM Feedmill Co., Ltd.Denmark: Danish Ministry of Climate

and Energy

Thailand: Veerachai Farm RangwaiDenmark: Danish Ministry of Climate

and Energy

Thailand: Nong Bua Farm & Country Home Village Co.Denmark: Danish Ministry of Climate and Energy

Date of Registration for CDM 24 March 2008 28 March 2008 27 March 2008

Date of acceptance 01 Apr 2011 01 Apr 2011 01 Apr 2011

CERs 23,556 metric tonnes CO2 equivalent per annum

32,092 metric tonnes CO2 equivalent per annum

15,958 metric tonnes CO2 equivalent per annum

Crediting Period 24 Mar 08 - 23 Mar 18 (Fixed) 28 Mar 08 - 27 Mar 18 (Fixed) 27 Mar 08 - 26 Mar 18 (Fixed)

42

Biogas from Pig Farms CDM Project• Thailand Small Scale Livestock Waste Management Program

- ERDI

Name of the project Thailand Small Scale Livestock Waste Management Program

Location all 75 provinces of Thailand

Business Type Piggery Farms

Type of Treatment System Anaerobic Digestion

Project Participants

Thailand: Energy Research and Development InstituteNakornping of Chiang Mai UniversityPortugal: International Bank for Reconstruction andDevelopment as Trustee of the Carbon Fund for Europe; Government of Portugal – Portuguese Carbon Fund

Date of Registration for CDM November 9, 2012

CERs 390,000

Crediting Period November 9, 2012 and December 31, 2018.

Name of the Participating

Farms

Number of pig(heads)

Carbon Credit(ton/year)

K.S.O 11,000 3,160

A.P. 10,000 3,581

Panas Amporn 8,288 2,213

V. Thai 11,673 3,104

Kanchana Hybrid 29,347 5,623

Kachana 22,400 7,730Jung 20,190 6,084Supaluek 53,535 13,715Maneerat 15,060 4,476Wanchai 18,730 8,428

Total 200,223 58,114

43

Date post:	11-Mar-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	dinhdieu
View:	229 times
Download:	2 times

Pollution Control and Policy Measures for Piggery Wastewater Management...

Documents