Guidelines for the Beneficial Use of Fertilizing Residuals

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Table 6.4 Analyses of residuals and calculation methods - comments C :N ratio Parameters Comments Conversion of P and K to P2O5 and K2O Dioxins and furans E. coli Barley germination and growth Organic matter • To calculate the C:N ratio, the organic carbon in residuals that show little biodegradation is estimated by dividing total organic matter by 2 (not by 1.724 as for soils). • P2O5 = P x 2.29 • K2O = K x 1.20 • Total TEQ values are calculated for 17 congeners based on NATO toxicity equivalency factors. • For undetected congeners, assuming a value of 0 or dividing the detection limit by two will have little effect on the results of high resolution methods, given the criteria that must be met (Groeneveld and Hébert, 2004). • In these Guidelines, E. coli are analyzed instead of fecal coliforms, because there is less likelihood of “false-positives” and because CEAEQ-accredited labs exist for E. coli. • Regrowth of coliform bacteria may occur in samples that have not been properly handled prior to analysis. Storage instructions and timelines for sending samples to labs must therefore be scrupulously observed to prevent errors in results. • Make sure that the seed lot has a normal germination rate. • Organic matter is easily measured by combustion (total volatile solids), except when a significant amount of carbonates are present (which are volatile at high temperatures). Molybdenum • Overestimation of molybdenum can occur in alkaline matrices. Neutralizing value - analysis Neutralizing value – calculation Biosolid stabilization processes Oxygen uptake rate • The CRIQ lab is BNQ accredited. • For ash, we consider the agricultural index as such: AI=NV (≈ 100% efficiency). • The neutralizing value (NV) of ash and lime residuals with an alkaline pH can usually be estimated using the following empirically validated equation: NV (% CCE) = (% Ca x 2.5) + (% Mg x 4.17) + (% K x 1.20). • For organic residuals that have been treated with lime, the NV can also be estimated using the following equation: NV (%, d.w.) = lime in mixture (%, d.w.) x NV of lime (%, d.w.). • The appropriate measurements and calculations (pH, sludge age, temperature, dates, etc.) must be recorded and checked by a qualified professional (chemist, engineer, etc.). The formula for calculating “sludge age” is provided in Appendix 3. • The reference method for composts is CAN/BNQ 0413-220 (BNQ, 1996). There is a BNQaccredited lab for this analysis. • For liquid residuals, use the EPA Method 1683 Specific Oxygen Uptake Rate in Biosolids. • The methods do not work if the pH is too acid or too alkaline, or if a biocide or any other microflora-inhibiting substance is present. • If the residual is dried or anaerobic, an acclimatization period may be necessary. 6.5 Compilation and presentation of analytical results for residual material A compilation of the following statistics must be provided for all the analyses performed over the 12 months preceding the CA application: • arithmetic mean; • presence/absence of Salmonella, for the P1 category; • geometric mean for E. coli, for the P2 category; G = k x1x 2... xk • maximum value; Section 6 ~ Page 37
• number of samples. The results must be expressed in dry weight, except for dryness which is on a wet-weight basis, as well as pH and the C:N ratio, have no units. Where a parameter is not detected in the analyses, the statistics are calculated by dividing the detection limit by two. For dioxins and furans, a value of 0 may be used alternatively (see Table 6.4). When a parameter is detected but not quantified, an estimated detection limit is used. Analytical reports must be signed by a chemist or any other qualified professional, and appended to the statistical compilation. Both the applicant and generator must advise the regional office immediately if a change in the classification of a FR is observed. 6.6 Quality control of residual materials 6.6.1 Need for independent verification or quality control by an accredited sampling firm The validity and representativeness of the residual materials characterization submitted by the applicant is based on the following assumptions: • the analytical results and resulting classification provided by the applicant are reliable; • the levels of fertilizing elements and contaminants measured in residuals that will be delivered to farms in the near future (within a few weeks or a few months) are similar to the values recorded over the preceding 12 months. The validity of these assumptions depends on compliance with the following conditions: • the variability of levels of contaminants and fertilizing elements is limited in time for a given residual; • the applicant performs sampling in an appropriate and unbiased manner; • the sample analysis is done by reliable accredited labs. The independent quality control tests done to date show that the analytical results for chemical parameters submitted by applicants are generally very reliable (Hébert and al., 2002). However, the results for microbiological analyses and agronomical parameters are more variable (Hébert and al., 2003). It is important to conduct independent quality control of sampling with a view to maintaining public confidence in FR beneficial use. It is therefore incumbent on the Ministry to periodically conduct quality control itself on FRs, or to ensure that this function is performed by an independent third party or a sampling firm accredited by the CEAEQ or the BNQ, particularly for pathogens. Section 6 ~ Page 38
Page 1 and 2: Changes to the Numbering of Regulat
Page 4 and 5: Guidelines For the Beneficial Use o
Page 6 and 7: Project team Author Marc Hébert, a
Page 8 and 9: Table of contents Project team ....
Page 10 and 11: 8.4.1 Criteria.....................
Page 12: Table 10.3 Other FR spreading const
Page 15 and 16: • composting in the field of less
Page 17 and 18: • land application on farms; •
Page 19 and 20: Guide de référence en fertilisati
Page 21 and 22: Table 2.2 Guiding principles retain
Page 24 and 25: 3 Main regulatory bodies This secti
Page 26 and 27: Table 3.1 Professionals and technol
Page 28: development of town planning which
Page 31 and 32: Table 4.1 Activites exempt from sec
Page 33 and 34: 4.2.4 Agricultural activities - Tra
Page 35 and 36: Table 4.3 Low environmental risk sp
Page 37 and 38: • manufacture of soil mixes from
Page 39 and 40: justified and that supporting docum
Page 41 and 42: 5.3.2 Processing of CA applications
Page 43 and 44: Table 5.1 Excerpts from the Environ
Page 46 and 47: 6 Required analyses The determinati
Page 48 and 49: 6.2 Number of samples Table 6.2 ind
Page 52 and 53: 6.6.2 Sampling firms accredited by
Page 54 and 55: 7 Agricultural value of residuals (
Page 56: Table 7.2 Mixes of residuals- possi
Page 59 and 60: Table 8.1 Possible uses of FR accor
Page 61 and 62: Table 8.2 Maximum limits for chemic
Page 63 and 64: If the long-term soil contaminant l
Page 65 and 66: Table 8.3 Residual quality criteria
Page 67 and 68: offensive odours when stored under
Page 69 and 70: Table 8.5 Odour criteria for limed
Page 72 and 73: 9 Temporary storage 9.1 Duration Th
Page 74 and 75: • heaps must be as high and large
Page 76: Readers should consult reference do
Page 79 and 80: Nitrogen management is also more pr
Page 81 and 82: Table 10.2 Separation distances for
Page 83 and 84: 10.4 Worker protection A survey of
Page 86 and 87: 11 Soil application for silvicultur
Page 88 and 89: 12 Other types of applications 12.1
Page 90 and 91: 13 FR based soil mixes 13.1 General
Page 92: Table 13.1 Environmental quality cr
Page 95 and 96: 14.2 On-farm composting of manures
Page 98 and 99: 15 Other uses of FRs 15.1 Livestock
Page 100:
Abbreviations and acronyms AEFP Agr
Page 103 and 104:
calcareous amendment Soil liming am
Page 105 and 106:
treatment of livestock waste gives
Page 107 and 108:
establishments, except bed and brea
Page 110 and 111:
Appendix 1: Supplementary informati
Page 112 and 113:
Table 6.2: Minimum number of sample
Page 114 and 115:
• the difference in concentration
Page 116 and 117:
The most toxic congeners, namely pl
Page 118 and 119:
Paper mill biosolids not contaminat
Page 120 and 121:
• ground frost, which increases t
Page 122 and 123:
(Centre de recherche industrielle d
Page 124 and 125:
Table 10.3: Spreading - Other const
Page 126 and 127:
implement in practice. This is part
Page 128 and 129:
Table A1.1 Table of maximum limit c
Page 130 and 131:
Appendix 2: Justification of the mo
Page 132 and 133:
material when these residuals are c
Page 134 and 135:
not affected during field storage o
Page 136 and 137:
d’Orléans where soils are subjec
Page 138 and 139:
• Agronomists responsible for the
Page 140:
Due to the high prices of all these
Page 144 and 145:
Appendix 4: Independent quality con
Page 146 and 147:
Appendix 5: N and P availability in
Page 148 and 149:
Appendix 6: MDDEP requirements for
Page 150:
Use of the resulting compost Farm c
Page 153 and 154:
BIOREX (1994). Bilan massique de de
Page 155 and 156:
CENTRE DE RÉFÉRENCE EN AGRICULTUR
Page 157 and 158:
FORTIN, S.H. (2000). Rapport préli
Page 159 and 160:
HOWARD, A. AND D. JOY (2005). Lime
Page 161 and 162:
PAYMENT, P. (1993). Risques d'expos
Page 163 and 164:
QUÉBEC, MINISTÈRE DE L’ENVIRONN
Page 165 and 166:
SAUERBECK, D. R., AND R. LESCHBER (
show all

Guidelines for the Beneficial Use of Fertilizing Residuals

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?