Nitrates in the Conodoguinet Creek: Difference between revisions

From Dickinson College Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
Alleym (talk | contribs)
Pajovicr (talk | contribs)
Line 91: Line 91:
'''Education (focusing on farmers as non-point sources)'''
'''Education (focusing on farmers as non-point sources)'''


Much of the time policies and regulations on farmers and the amount of fertilizer they are aloud to use are set at levels that are beyond what is actually needed for their crops.  Through education farmers would no longer be using unnecessary amounts of fertilizer on their crops.  Not only would this save money for the farmers because they are using less fertilizer, they would also be damaging the Conodogonit Creek less because of the reduced amounts of nitrates going into the creek as a non-point source.  One-way farmers could be educated, is through the governmentThe government could then make it mandatory for farmers to pass a “farmers test” every few years.  By making it mandatory it forces the farmers to be educated about nitrates and the damages they cause but also by having a mandatory test every few years it will insure the farmers stay updated on how they can reduce the amounts of nitrates they use.  If farmers do not pass the mandatory test they will not be permitted to sell their crops.   
Much of the time policies and regulations on farmers and the amount of fertilizer they are aloud to use are set at levels that are beyond what is actually needed for their crops.  Through education farmers would no longer be using unnecessary amounts of fertilizer on their crops.  Not only would this save money for the farmers because they are using less fertilizer, they would also be damaging the Conodogonit Creek less because of the reduced amounts of nitrates going into the creek as a non-point source.  the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) already does educate farmers on what they should be doing, however because of the abundance of nitrates in the Conodogonit Creek this is not enoughTo make sure the farmers are fully understand what they should be doing the government could make it mandatory for farmers to pass a “farmers test” every few years.  By making it mandatory it forces the farmers to be educated about nitrates and the damages they cause, but also by having a mandatory test every few years it will insure the farmers stay updated on how they can reduce the amounts of nitrates they use.  For incentive for farmers to pass the test the government could make it madatory to pass if you want to sell you crops to the public.   


Education could also be used to educate industries about how they can use different materials that are less harmful towards the environment, upgrade their facilities to cause less environmental damage, and how in taking these steps in the long run it may help their facility run more efficiently and save money.
Education could also be used to educate industries about how they can use different materials that are less harmful towards the environment, upgrade their facilities to cause less environmental damage, and how in taking these steps in the long run it may help their facility run more efficiently and save money.

Revision as of 04:21, 1 December 2009

Conodoguinet Creek

Conodoguinet comes from an Indian word meaning "A long way with many bends". The creek was rightly named this for its twisting and bending path. The Conodoguinet Creek is approximately 90 miles long and flows east into the Susquehanna River. The creek drains an area of 470 sq miles that is occupied by both agricultural and developed land.

Map of Conodoguinet Creek

There are 33 permitted point source discharges into the Conodoguinet Creek. Water tested from wells in Cumberland county and in the Carlisle area near the Condoguinet Creek have nitrate concentrations that are among the highest in the nation, frequently exceeding 10 mg/L.

Water Pollution

The Environmental Protection Agency defines water pollution as ................. The EPA separates water pollution sources into two categories: Point Source and Non-Point Source pollutants. Point Source: water pollution are from locations such as sewage treatment plants, factories, and ships. Non-Point Source: water pollution primarily comes from agricultural run-off, mining sites, and paved roads.

Nitrates

What are nitrates?:

Nitrates are Nitrogen-Oxygen chemical units. The primary sources of organic nitrates come from human sewage and livestock manure. The primary inorganic sources of nitrates are potassium nitrate and ammonium nitrate both of which are widely used as fertilizers. Nitrates migrate to ground water which is often used as utility or drinking water. They do not evaporate naturally in water. The only way nitrates can be removed from water is if they are consumed by living organisms or treated at a water treatment center.

Nitrate Ion

Health Effects of Nitrates

Short-term and Long-term exposure can cause serious health effects to humans and the environment. Standards and regulations have been set by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

Human Health Effects

Short-term Exposure

Excessive levels of nitrate in drinking water, even over a short period of time, has caused serious illness and sometimes even death in both adults and infants. The most common serious illness in infants is due to the conversion of nitrate to nitrite once the chemical has entered the body. This interferes with the oxygen-carrying capacity of human blood. This condition is known as methemoglobinemia. Symptoms include shortness of breath and blueness of the skin. In infants this condition is called "Blue Baby Syndrome".

Long-term Exposure

Once again nitrates are most harmful after entering the body because of their conversion to nitrites. Long term exposure can cause serious illness and has lead to death. Conditions include diuresis, increased starchy deposits, and hemorrhaging of the spleen.

Environmental Health Effects

Utility System

Point Source Pollution

Non-Point Source Pollution

Current Regulations on Nitrates in Conodoguinet Creek

Point Source Regulations

Clean Water Act: The foundation of the clean water act was originally created in 1948 under the name of the "Federal Water Pollution Act". In 1972 it was revised and expanded, and then in 1977 amendments were made which earned it the the name the "Clean Water Act". The Clean Water Act has made it unlawful to discharge any pollutant from a point source into any navigable water sources unless a permit is attained. Under this law, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has regulated point source emissions by implementing pollution control programs. The EPA's national pollutant discharge elimination system (NPDES), is the permit program that regulates discharges from point sources.

Link to clean water act: http://epw.senate.gov/water.pdf

CWA programs


-National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Program This program seeks to protect the health of the nations water sources by regulated point source polluters. The NPDES regulates approximately 15,000 publicly owned water treatment plants and about 85,000 industrial polluters. This program distributes permits, lasting five years long, that are distributed to single dischargers or group discharges. To obtain a permit the discharger must be able to control the pollution discharged, monitor emissions, and report discharges. As of the NPDES is able to distribute permits in 44 states and one territory also they are able to enforce compliance to the mandated standards by the EPA.

-The NPDES has four main subprograms under the name, wet weather enforcement programs. These subprograms are used to regulate discharges from wet weather such as runoff or rain. The four main subprograms of NPDES consist of the Combined Sewer Overflow Program (CSO), Storm Water Program, Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations Program (CAFO), and Sanitary Sewer Overflow Program (SSO).

-CSO

-Storm Water Program

-CAFO

-SSO

-Pretreatment Program- The Pretreatment program has two main purposes. The first purpose is to stop the introduction of new pollutants that will harm the plant operations and to stop pollutants from going untreated, from publicly owned treatment works (POTW). The second purpose is to improve the opportunity that POTW’s have to reuse wastewaters and sludge that are generated form their plants. The federal, state, and local governments work together to ensure that these two purposes are met. The industries pre-treat their waste discharged into sewage treatment plants. The pretreatment program saves the local sewage systems from millions of dollars in investments of upgrades in facilities because industries pre-treat their discharges.

Link to pretreatment regulations for PA-http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=2f4c44d9fa1bf64016d209d1543dd5cc&rgn=div5&view=text&node=40:28.0.1.1.4&idno=40

-Biosolid and Sludge Program- The Biosolid and Sludge program was created to regulate the use and disposal of sewage sludge. This was done through part 503 regulation of the CWA. This program applies to the disposal of biosolids and sludge in land disposal, surface disposal, incineration, and landfills. In each of these methods there are standards that must be met such as meeting requirements, limiting pollution, operating up to standards, record keeping and then reporting records.

Link to Biosolid and Sludge Program regulations for PA-http://www.pacode.com/secure/data/025/chapter271/subchapJtoc.html

-Wetlands Dredged and Fill Material Program- This program created under section 404 of the CWA, mandates that waste is not discharged into wetlands and other water sources unless a permit authorizes it. The Army Corps of Engineers must authorize the permit. Because wetlands are such an important part of the environment permits are strictly given out. The EPA and Army Corps of Engineers agreed that in terms of enforcement they should focus on discharge that is not allowed by permit.

Link to CWA section 404 that sets the regulation laws-http://www.epa.gov/owow/wetlands/regs/sec404.html

-Oil and Hazardous Substances Spills Program- This program was created from section 311 of the CWA. The focus of this program is a joint effort by the EPA and U.S. Coast Guard to deal with pollution from oil and other hazardous substances. Through this program the EPA and U.S. Coast Guard are able to prepare and act in the case of an oil spill or other hazardous spills that will affect U.S. water sources. The EPA and U.S. Coast Guard are able to enforce penalties in the event that an oil spill or other hazardous substances spill. Penalties are enforced for spills of oil and hazardous substances and also for violating methods used for prevention and responses to spills. The penalty in the case of a spill of oil and hazardous substances are $1,100 per barrel of substance and for violating prevention and response methods the penalty could amount to $27,500 per day.

Non-point Source Regulations

fertilizer regulations on farmers

Solutions

Stricter regulations

The regulations of the Biosolid and sludge program created from the CWA has many strict regulations that make using biosolids as a fertilizer a very good practice; however there are some regulations within this program that could be stricter to better regulate nitrates going into the Conodogouit Creek. The first regulation that could be made stricter is that of which farmers have to be a certain distance from a creek to be able to use biosolids. If this regulation were to be made stricter much of the problems from nitrates going through the ground and then making there way to the Conodogoit Creek would be gone. A suggestion for this would be to make mandatory that farmers be a required distance from water sources so that only a manageable amount of nitrates reach the the Conodogoit Creek. Another regulation that could be made stricter is how much biosolids are used as fertilizer per acre for farming. Although there are strict regulations to control amounts of biosolids that go on fields, these regulations are either not followed by the farmers, or the regulations themselves allow to much fertilizer. The first problem could be addressed through education of the farmers. This idea will be discussed more in-depth in the following paragraph. The second problem could be addressed through even stricter regulation with strong enforcement and penalties. The amount of fertilizer a farmer receives should be based on not only how much land it is being used for but for the specific type of crop.


Education (focusing on farmers as non-point sources)

Much of the time policies and regulations on farmers and the amount of fertilizer they are aloud to use are set at levels that are beyond what is actually needed for their crops. Through education farmers would no longer be using unnecessary amounts of fertilizer on their crops. Not only would this save money for the farmers because they are using less fertilizer, they would also be damaging the Conodogonit Creek less because of the reduced amounts of nitrates going into the creek as a non-point source. the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) already does educate farmers on what they should be doing, however because of the abundance of nitrates in the Conodogonit Creek this is not enough. To make sure the farmers are fully understand what they should be doing the government could make it mandatory for farmers to pass a “farmers test” every few years. By making it mandatory it forces the farmers to be educated about nitrates and the damages they cause, but also by having a mandatory test every few years it will insure the farmers stay updated on how they can reduce the amounts of nitrates they use. For incentive for farmers to pass the test the government could make it madatory to pass if you want to sell you crops to the public.

Education could also be used to educate industries about how they can use different materials that are less harmful towards the environment, upgrade their facilities to cause less environmental damage, and how in taking these steps in the long run it may help their facility run more efficiently and save money.

New technology

the Carlisle treatment plant upgrading their facilities

Sources