What about this to contribute to your list of New Year's Resolutions? I was convinced that I might pass on the contents of the e-mail below which might interest you and came from a reader, who wrote about how he went to a landfill for the first time in his life, in 2011. It was quite a cathartic experience for him:
The pleasant news is, it only took one quick trip to the landfill, for me to come to my senses and make changes about the way In which I do things and about the way In which I think.
If we aren’t thinking worldwide when talking about waste, and what we are leaving behind, we aren’t being smart. Grab some youngsters, or some forty-somethings and take yourself on a field expedition that may, do for you what it probably did for me ; make the changes that are necessary for me to see what the grim reality of our situation is and change the way In which I do things.
I suspect that there has to be many individuals who, like him, have busy lives, and before 2011, never gave waste disposal a lot of thought. Naturally I am really not recommending that you climb over a fence to go to a landfill. Most big and well run landfills presently supply a resource centre where college youngsters are educated about waste control and recycling during college trips, and a short telephone call to the landfill office before you leave should ensure you can select a timet when the facility will be open. Such facilities are customarily found at an easy to visit position on the landfill where there's also a landfill viewing point and the staff will often be available to reply to any questions you will have.
Whether or not the landfill does or doesn't have a visitor resource centre, in my previous experience the staff, (if given satisfactory notice) will probably be pleased to meet any local resident and show them around their landfill for 30 minutes. In reality as residents we will do a lot to help our landfill operators to maintain the best standards by doing this. Keeping a landfill clean is difficult work, it is way more rewarding if those doing it also feel the community cares about their landfill, instead of only ever just moaning when for some reason things go badly.
Hence how's that for a New Year's Resolution? Make that trip to a landfill! It could be quite an "eye opener" just as it was for our reader. Who knows, you may even come back impressed if areas of the landfill have been well revived.
In recent times there's been a trend towards MSW leachates from Sanitary Landfills internationally getting more similar nonetheless, as Mechanical Biological Treatment is increasingly implemented and more Mechnanically Sorted Organic Residues [also called "residual waste"] is produced in the supply area for a rubbish heap, so that the leachate quality of the rubbish heap will change.
If you were hoping to learn of a major decrease in the polluting potential of leachate produced from MSOR, from the bulk of sources, then this paper will dissatisfy you. That's clear from the source for this info, which is the work done by a UK research team during 2005, which was financed by the United Kingdom Environment Agency. The only really pleasant news is that typically, though not always, for all of the sources analyzed by Robinson, Knox, Bone, and Picken ; longer composting ( as an element of MBT processes ) did cut back the potential of the leachate produced. Sadly, hard COD values weren't found to have been reduced by MBT processing, and allegedly might be 2 to 4 times stronger than for equivalent leachate from MSW landfills, which should be a significant concern for the environment, and comprise high leachate treatment costs. Such leachates are also described as continuing for ; "at least several decades".
The sole consistent advantage reported is that leachate from MBT / MSOR wastes placed in methanogenic landfills don't reach the tops seen in Sanitary Landfills for non-pretreated MSW, in the first acetogenic stage. Hence the on-site or off-site treatment of the leachate may be simpler to achieve. Additionally, when effective MBT processes are applied, these can reduce concentrations of trace organics, and of Ammoniacal-N in leachates.
There appears to be a lack of knowledge of leachate contaminant dangers apparent in the following "No toxic dam danger? " article we have quaoted below. If the dam is significantly leachate contaminated then the ammonia present from leachate contamination is the most persistent and dnagerous, and it won't be removed at all by adding chlorine which is it appears, seen here as a disinfectant.
Has anyone tested the water for ammoniacal nitrogen concentration - apparently not - or landfill leachate contamination would show its presence, and at times only less than 5 mg/l will cause fish kills. Why disinfect - as the dead fish will raise the bacteria concentration in the watercourse back again. Read the article extract below:
HIBISCUS Coast Municipality has denied that its Oatlands landfill site in Ramsgate is “a disaster waiting to happen” after high levels of contamination were found in in the stormwater and leachate dams.
Yandisa Mhlamvu, waste management officer for the landfill site, told a media briefing, held yesterday especially to allay residents’ fears, that the municipality is treating both dams in isolation.
The municipality has contracted Ngcolosi Consulting Engineers to reduce the level of the leachate dam.
“Currently we have temporary pump system to cascade the water into the landfill site to keep the levels low. Ngcolosi Consulting has been contracted to put in a permanent pump, which is also part of the long-term solution.”
A senior civil engineer with Ngcolosi, William Tarume, said the project would be completed in the next six to eight weeks. “Physical work on the site will start next week. We do not have a final cost of the project, but we have a rough estimate of between R700,000 and R800,000 at the moment.”
Mhlamvu said the pump was not installed during the construction of the leachate dam in 2009 due to financial constraints. “The pump was to be added at the next phase of the project, which we are at now.” She pointed out that the leachate dam cannot be completely drained. “The dam has to have some water in it to protect the surface material of the dam from exposure”
She said treatment on the stormwater contamination dam started with 62 kilograms of chlorine added on Friday. The water will be tested today to see if the level of pollution has decreased to acceptable and legal levels for controlled releases to be made.
The departments of Water Affairs and Forestry and Agriculture will also have to okay the release. Mhlamvu said the municipality is confident that the treatment will be successful, but it has an alternative treatment if it the chlorine does not kill the bacteria. “We have other options for waste water treatment like membrane technology to make use of.”
Acting director for operations Mandla Mabece said the municipality wants to be totally transparent.
“We have nothing to hide and we want our end user to know that everything is under control.
“We are taking the situation very seriously. We do not want to compromise the quality of life of our residents or the tourists who visit us.”
Don't you often get tired of the long succession of bad news stories throughout the media? Well at the "Leachate Blog" we are delighted to bring some good news for change! The follwoing is a quote form the original article whioch appeared recently in the Little Falls Evening Times.
The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation recently reclassified the Rose Valley Landfill site as a Class 4 site on the Registry of Inactive Hazardous Waste Disposal Sites. The result is that Rose Valley Landfill site no longer considered to present threat says the Little Falls Evening Times.
As a Class 4 site, the property is no longer considered to present a significant threat to public health and/or the environment. The site is in the town of Russia, on a parcel of land between Rose Valley, Bromley and Military roads. Finch Brook runs along the side of the property. It is currently owned by the Estate of Gerald Crouch and Joyce Miller. Crouch was the owner-operator of the Rose Valley Landfill from 1963 to 1985, the time it was a hazardous waste disposal site. As a result, the site was added to the Registry of Inactive Hazardous Waste Disposal Sites as a Class 2 site in 1992. In 1998, the site was added to the State Superfund Program. The DEC was concerned about levels of 1,1,1, TCA, 1,1,1-Trichloroethane (TCA) and 1-1-Dichloroethane in the soil and groundwater. The levels of these contaminants are unknown.
Tne well from a nearby residence was contaminated. A new well was drilled in 2006 and was still uncontaminated in 2009. Remediation of the site was finished in spring 2008. It included consolidating contaminated soil on-site and placing it beneath a soil cap and erecting a fence to restrict access to the landfill.
A long-term monitoring program exists for the site which includes the collection and treatment of groundwater and leachate (water that carries in solution materials from the soil it has passed through). The site management plan and environmental easement addressed the remaining site contamination.
We quote from a news item below which is about a landfill from which leachate will be trucked out to a sewage wroks for treatment. In most coases this is more expensive than buidling a leachate treatment plant on-site (see the leachate treatment website, and the fact is that these won't be the same vehicles either. Leachate has to be transported in tanker vehicles and the waste come in in waste collection vehicles, and bulk waste trucks!
Read the following quote and you'll understand what I am saying:
Guam's new landfill hums along in Inarajan, but a plan to build a smaller landfill with a waste-to-energy incinerator continues in Santa Rita despite objections from nearby residents.
Nearly 100 people attended a passionate public hearing last night, most objecting to plans for the Guatali Municipal Solid Waste Landfill.
"We don't really need another landfill right now," said Debora Moore. "We already have a brand-new landfill. ... I'm against it and I felt like I should speak out against it."
It was short, simple criticism, but Santa Rita residents clapped and cheered when she finished. It was like that for most of the evening's testimony.
Last night's hearing was held by the Guam Environmental Protection Agency to collect comments. The agency is considering issuing a permit for Guatali landfill plans. The deadline to submit testimony is Friday.
The company behind the project is Guam Resource Recovery Partners, which plans to stockpile waste on leased GovGuam land, then start incinerating the garbage to make energy, according to an impact assessment of the project.
If Guam EPA issues a permit, the Guatali facility will be built on an 87-acre land parcel in Santa Rita, just north of Apra Heights and uphill from the Atantano River, the impact assessment states. About 22 acres of savannah would become waste storage cells, bracketed by small wetlands to the east and west, the assessment states.
The waste stored in the cells is expected to generate about 36,000 gallons of leachate daily. Some will be absorbed by filtering the leachate back through the landfill; the rest would be trucked to the wastewater treatment plant in Hag't'a, the impact assessment states.
That's how the landfill would work, trucking garbage in and trucking leachate out, for the first three to five years, by which time Guam Resource Recovery Partners hopes to have its waste-to-energy incinerator running.
The company's incinerator efforts have been wrapped up in a court battle for about a decade. If Guam Resource Recovery Partners ever gets approval for the facility, it would run for 11 months a year, the assessment states......
....The impact assessment states repeatedly the Guatali landfill is needed to close the Ordot dump, which will improve quality of life on Guam. The document was last revised in January, so it doesn't reflect that the Ordot dump has been closed for almost three months.
That begs the same question that surfaced at the Santa Rita hearing: Does Guam need two landfills?
When asked yesterday about the justification for a second landfill, Guirguis said the island didn't need two landfills. However, Guirguis insists the Guatali proposal -- not the finished landfill in Inarajan --is better for Guam.
Guirguis said the Inarajan landfill will reach its 50-year life expectancy only if GovGuam continues to build more storage cells, expanding the landfill footprint. In contrast, once the Guatali facility starts incinerating waste, it won't need to expand its landfill component, Guirguis said.
Guirguis said the Guatali landfill also is preferable because it will be cheaper than the government landfill. Tipping fees already have been increased.
The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency issued the following news release seems surprising. If, as seems to be being suggested in this news release the perpetrator was breaking the envirnomental law, these people are environmental criminals, so why was there an agreement when this should have gone to court? In such cases the litigant should pay all the costs and not the state, so what possible reason can these be for this?
Am I being too Machiavellian by noting that actually there was a reason for Long Prairie Packing to come to an agreement as they want to develop an AD Plant:
Long Prairie Packing Co., LLC, and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) recently reached an agreement that requires the company to pay $52,000 for alleged water quality violations. The violations occurred between fall 2009 and spring 2010 at the company's facility in Long Prairie, Minn.
According to MPCA staff inspection reports, the company improperly stockpiled and land applied industrial byproducts, and failed to maintain a required 600-foot land application setback from surface waters at seven sites. Some of the land applications occurred within farmed wetlands. The company also failed to notify the MPCA or immediately recover blood-contaminated leachate which spilled out of a dumpster and a large storage tote; improperly stored more than 500 gallons of used oil; and operated parts of the facility without a required federal and state industrial stormwater permit.
Of the $52,000 civil penalty, half will be paid to the MPCA, and half will be spent on completing a supplemental environmental project. Long Prairie Packing Co. plans to construct an industrial anaerobic digester near the plant that will reduce the amount and toxicity of pollutants entering area waters, and significantly reduce the land application of industrial byproducts. The digester will produce biogas, which will help reduce dependency on coal-powered energy sources. The company has also completed a series of required corrective actions.
Leachate odor can be extremely unpleasant. It can actually get into your clothes and even days later be smelled in them. That's why we have every sympathy for the complainants in this case. Here is a quote from the article recently published:
BRIGDEN — A public meeting on Nov. 15 that was meant to reassure neighbors of Clean Harbors's hazardous waste site was reduced at times to a shouting match. About a dozen of the 50 in attendance stormed out of the Brigden Fair exhibition hall in frustration.
(The above video is not connected to the article other than the fact that it attests to the odor potential of leachate.)
"We've listened to your dog and pony show. Now it's time to listen to us," yelled an angry Butch Houle.
He and many other neighbours of the Telfer Road facility have been disturbed by a stench intermittently coming from Clean Harbors since August.
The odour, which the company says comes from too much on site eachate, has driven neighbours from their homes, made them nauseous, stung their eyes and sent at least one man to hospital.
"When the ministry (of environment) ordered two truckloads removed from the site every day, why wasn't that achieved?" Norm O'Neill demanded. "It's all a smoke and mirrors game."
"We are not being heard. Our concerns are not being addressed," said Joe Dickenson, a Lambton County beef farmer.
"I think a lot of this issue is airborne, not necessarily leachate; but all you do is focus on leachate because it might be the easiest thing to address."
Many people called for the plant to shut down.
"I'd like you to clean up your mess and go home," one man shouted.
For most of the two-hour meeting, Clean Harbors's management sat quietly at the back of the room.
General manager Chris Brown spoke briefly, apologizing for the stench and promising the company is working to correct it.
"The company is committed to fixing this issue," he said. "We deeply regret this summer's odours."
Rod Brooks, a representative from Ortech Environmental, spoke about air sampling on 10 occasions during odour events.
The air is tested for 38 Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs)and none surpass regulatory standards, he said.
Greg Ferrar, senior environmental engineer with Conestoga Rovers & Associates, said his company is hired to devise a leachate abatement plan and focused on reducing the amount of leachate generated as well as reducing the amount already on-site through incineration.
But most of the meeting was conducted by a hired facilitator, Bryan Boyle, who allowed few to speak. Instead, he tried to engage the angry group by having them write down their thoughts about Clean Harbors and what they believe the solution to the stench might be.
Many in the crowd didn't want to write anything down.
"Forget this Romper Room nonsense," said Jim Stenton of Petrolia Line. "We want answers because we're stunk out of our homes.
"You're wasting our time," he hollered."
One resident walked up to the front of the hall and stuck a note on the wall that read: "As usual, all talk, no action."
"I want people from Clean Harbors to hear the emotion that I hear and I want them to come up and tell us what they are going to do," said St. Clair Township Mayor Steve Arnold.
It was only after several got up and left in anger, that the company's senior vice-president of regulatory affairs spoke.
Phil Retallick said exhaustive studies confirm the odour is coming from leachate, not the plant's incinerator or a new Thermal Desorption Unit.
"It's sulfites in the leachate and it doesn't contain carcinogens or other toxic compounds," Retallick said.
"There are no compounds of any risk associated with the vapours, but it is a nuisance and we will deal with that. Our experts say it will take four to six months depending on the rainfall this winter."
Retallick said Clean Harbors has no choice but to reduce its on-site leachate by May because of a directive from the Ministry of Environment.
There will be further public meetings about odour abatement, he said.
We have published an article on our main leachate web site about predictive modelling of leachate generation volumes. Unfortunatly, the best calculations done in this way are looked upon as the best acheivable, but have on many occasions not been as accurate as anticipated or needed. Go see our article by following the link below if you would like to find out why we think this is occurring.
Avoiding Over Reliance on the Hydrologic Evaluation of Landfill Performance (HELP) Computer Program
Bi-County Solid Waste Management expects to save up to $20,000 each month with the help of its latest step toward self-sufficiency.
The Montgomery County landfill's executive director, Pete Reed, said the majority of leachate, or contaminated water, on the site will eventually be treated in the lagoon that began holding water after the May 2010 flood that shut down Clarksville's wastewater treatment plant.
"They had to put a permit on us and start charging us $9,000 to 10,000 a month, but if we had a parameter that goes above, then we had ... surcharges that could be an additional $15,000 in that month," said Reed, who added that the landfill went above that parameter 2-3 times a year.
As those costs started to build, along with the high costs of hauling the leachate off the site, Reed said the decision was made to create a $750,000 system featuring the lagoon that holds 1.3 million gallons and will be able to decontaminate the water over a 30-day period.
Three separate pools hold the water that is pumped in from various locations throughout the site. The two pools with a white foam layer on top are anoxic zones, meaning aerators pump in oxygen, while the middle pool is anaerobic, with a pump that puts in a different mixture of chemicals.
Beginning in May of this year, Reed said micro-organisms that are trained to eat ammonia and other chemicals were added to help treat the water by releasing the nitrates and taking out any odor. Although Reed said the pools have reached the optimal amount of the "bugs" that come from Paris, Tenn., it will still be a few months before the system is fully operational.
Reed said the lagoon has already ensured the landfill won't go beyond its monthly parameters at the wastewater treatment plant, and eventually the treated water will overflow into a clarifier that will filter out the sludge and transport the clean water to a 7 million gallon holding pond adjacent to the lagoon. That water will be used for irrigation on the grass at the site, as well as the nearby woods and, if it's clean enough, into local streams.
Depending on the season, Reed said the system could put out about a million gallons each month. Before it can be used for irrigation or anything else, several samples of the water will have to be approved by the state.
Even with the new system, some leachate will still go to the wastewater treatment plant, but the cost of the permit and the manpower required will be reduced significantly. Reed said he doesn't expect the loss of income from the landfill to have much effect on the plant's bottom line, since it's expanding and gets plenty of money from industrial sources.
"We hope that by this time next year, we'll be pretty much self-contained," Reed said. "Nothing will have to go out, other than (recyclables)."
Approximately 100 million tonnes of waste are disposed of each year (comprising Municipal Solid Waste and Industrial/ Commercial Wastes) at the many licensed landfill sites operating in England and Wales. However space for landfilling at these locations is due to run out in the very near future, so many people need to be told about them, so that new landfills can be planned. It will always be necessary to have some landfills. Although zero waste is a great aspirational target, at some point before zero, the law of diminishing returns will always set in, and the energy used apart from the cost of avoiding that last few percent of waste, will always make zero waste an unachievable target.
When rainfall soaks into waste in a garbage tip it slowly drains through the waste under gravity. As it does so it picks up soluble contaminants from the waste itself. This produces a very strongly organically contaminated liquid which is called leachate. Most of the contamination is biological (organic) in nature, but whatever soluble contaminants are present in the landfill, the leachate will probably also contain them in small quantities. The leachate will also have dissolved methane in it if it comes from a gassing (biogas producing or âmethanogenicâ) landfill.
If there is no base lining the leachate will drain away through any reasonably permeable material which exists under the landfill. Although this material below the landfill may do some filtering and further cleansing of the leachate, it can enter the underground strata still in a highly polluting condition. Water flowing in subterranean rock, through cracks and fissures and through any permeable material is called groundwater.
In many parts of the developed ad developing world this groundwater will be used for drinking and cooking. It will obviously be dangerous to human health for people to imbibe this flow. This will happen if and when pumped out for use from contaminated strata, or where the groundwater emerges at the surface.
Groundwater moves slowly and continuously through the open spaces in soil and rock. If a landfill contaminates groundwater, a plume of contamination will occur wherever reasonably permeable material exists below, for example a private property plot.
Any groundwater which gets polluted will still keep flowing underground and although the ground may help to naturally filter and biologically treat the leachate, eventually the pollution flow may grow and the small extent of a polluted area shown initially may later have to be extended if a growing contaminant plume develops, and nearby water resources including water supply boreholes can be contaminated. If they do they will probably remain unusable for several generations. Such a loss of something as precious as water is a terrible problem for later generations.
So, is it any wonder that environmental activists dislike landfills not only because of the potential for pollution just described, however, the more astute among them also dislike landfilling because landfills permanently remove large quantities of raw materials from economic use.
All of the energy and natural resources (such as water) that were used to process the items "wasted" are also not conserved.
Environmental Protection Agencies in many countries generally rely on the laws in their states to enforce their own operating permits and federal laws. If state agencies are not aggressive, violations can worsen, multiplying negative environmental impacts exponentially. Environmental pollution of land, air, and water created by the world's poorly-managed landfills is enormous.
In the early 21st century, alternative methods to waste disposal have been devised, including recycling, converting to biodegradable products, incineration and cogeneration facilities, and sustainable development, all of which assist in reducing global landfill pollution.
Steve Evans is an authority on landfill liabilities and Global Warming effects visit any one of the product and resource links we give here and you will not be disappointed. Landfill Problems and Global Warming Effects are just two of many issues on which we comment, plus educational and general information available free, if you visit the Landfilling Site web site.
CARIBOU, Maine — High water levels of the Little Madawaska River have hindered two pipeline construction projects, both literally a stone’s throw from completion.
Standing on the bank off Grimes Mill Road on Sept. 9, Mark Draper watched as water rushed downstream at 917 cubic feet per second — more than 800 cubic feet per second higher than normal based on a U.S. Geological Survey average for the last three years.
“Last year at this time you could walk across this river and not get your feet wet,” said Draper, solid waste director of the Tri-Community Landfill.
Tri-Community Landfill is 175 feet from completing a 2.3-mile pipeline project to connect the landfill to the Caribou Utilities District, where the landfill’s leachate — water that has come into contact with garbage — will be treated.
Until the pipeline is completed, Tri-Community employees will continue hauling the leachate to the CUD one 6,300-gallon truckload at a time.
As Draper explained, CUD didn’t have the capacity to accept Tri-Community’s leachate when the landfill was first built, and there wasn’t a feasible way to pipe the leachate to Fort Fairfield for treatment.
Now that Caribou has the capacity for the leachate, the pipeline will save Tri-Community employees roughly 1,000 trips a year hauling approximately 6 million gallons of leachate.
But nature seemed to have other plans for the project as record-setting precipitation this summer has caused the Little Madawaska River to swell and rage along. Workers with Soderberg Construction considered building a cofferdam to push river water to one side in order to lay two 6-inch pipes across the riverbed — one pipe for daily operations and the other as a backup. But the high, rushing water dampened that plan.
Instead, officials with Tri-Community and Soderberg opted to go with directional drilling under the river — essentially drilling down from one bank, under the river, and over to the opposite bank.
Subcontractors with Enterprise Trenchless Technologies Inc. of Lisbon Falls were on-site Tuesday afternoon for the directional drilling under the river, which will allow the two ends of the pipeline finally to meet after a season of opposing each other from the banks of the Little Madawaska. The project is likely to be completed this week.
Expediting the weather-delayed project by drilling and essentially bypassing the river will cost an estimated $18,000. That cost will be split between the contractor and Tri-Community. The total projected cost of the leachate pipeline project is approximately $1.7 million, which includes engineering, easements for right of way, environmental permits and construction.
What Draper found most frustrating was that the rain not only delayed the project but also added to the amount of leachate that needed to be treated.
But Tri-Community Landfill isn’t the only entity that has been trying in vain to cross the Little Madawaska River this summer; just downstream, the Greater Limestone Water and Sewer District also is just shy of completing a pipeline project. That district is trying to connect to an existing Caribou Utilities District pipeline so its treated waste can reach the Aroostook River.
Limestone Water and Sewer Director Jim Leighton explained that directional drilling isn’t an option for that project because the pipe the district plans to run under the river has a diameter of 21 inches.
Like the Tri-Community project, efforts to build a cofferdam earlier this summer were a wash.
“So now we’re doing the waiting game,” Leighton said.
Since Sept. 6 and 7, when the river was rushing at more than 2,500 cubic feet per second — bearing in mind a gallon of water weighs just more than 8 pounds — the water level has been dropping steadily. At the beginning of this week, the river was “down” to 374 cubic feet per second. Waiting out the weather isn’t a problem for LWSC, as a few weeks’ delay won’t change the project’s cost.
Leighton is confident that the project will find a window this fall.
“This [pipeline under the river] will connect us to the Aroostook River, then it’s just a matter of turning a couple of valves and we’ll be able to start utilizing the pipeline,” Leighton said.
Leighton also pre-emptively clarified that while the Greater Limestone Water and Sewer District is connecting its pipeline with that of the Caribou Utilities District in order to reach the Aroostook River, all of Limestone’s wastewater still will be treated in Limestone — it’s not being transported to Caribou. Rather, LWSD is using the same diffuser pipe as CUD to discharge into the Aroostook River. View the original article here
The vast mountains of decaying rubbish buried beneath Norfolk's landscape may be hidden from view - but their potential environmental consequences are not so easily masked. Waste dumped by generations of families and businesses is still decomposing, oozing toxic chemicals and greenhouse gases which could threaten their natural surroundings.
But the challenge of managing our landfill legacy is being met through an innovative engineering effort, while policy-makers continue battling to find more sustainable ways to dispose of the refuse left by a growing population.
Norfolk County Council is responsible for more than 150 closed landfills, of which six are the larger "permitted" sites which were still operating by the time new environmental regulations came into force in the 1990s. Teams of technicians work to a double remit: to monitor and minimise the ecological impact of gas and leachate generated by so much buried waste, and to find ways to maximise income from its useful by-product - methane.
Turning the greenhouse gas into energy at four sites is currently worth about £280,000 per year to the county council, 22pc of the total costs for managing the authority's closed landfills.
Meanwhile, water percolates through rotting rubbish, collecting chemical contaminants as it goes, and the resulting leachate must be routinely monitored, abstracted and sent away for treatment. In all, keeping permitted sites in compliance with environmental regulations costs taxpayers about £1.4m per year.
Bill Borrett, Norfolk's cabinet member for environment and waste, said: "I think people have got to understand more about landfill, because once you understand the amount it costs, the environmental hazards and the amount of space it takes up, people become more aware of the legacy of their waste and the importance of recycling.
"It is not simply put into a hole and forgotten about - there is years of work in maintaining the land after that." The site at Mayton Wood, near Coltishall, accepted 1.5m tonnes of commercial, industrial and household waste between 1971 and 2003. The waste is grouped into huge domed "cells" contained by a liner and capping system.
The base of the landfill consists of a clay base, followed by a waterproof plastic membrane which is protected by a shingle or sand drainage layer above it. At the top, a similar set of layers encase the waste - along with the gas and liquids - in an impermeable bowl, with the angled sides draining any leachate to a collection sump at the bottom. Meanwhile, rainwater is prevented from getting into the landfill, and is instead channelled to the perimeter across the domed surface.
Hydrogeologist Tim Wilkins regularly samples, monitors and controls leachate levels with the help of a computerised system of wells and pumps. "Leachate is what you get when water percolates through the waste and picks up contaminants," he said. "Some of it comes out looking like coffee and smells quite nasty. The main constituent is ammoniacal nitrogen, and it can be quite toxic to the aquatic environment.
"We have got 11 wells on this site and each has a pump and a level sensor which sense the level of the liquid. The pumps are operated automatically when the leachate reaches a level of one metre above the base layer. "All the permitted sites are now within compliance, but when we took them over (in 2008) they generally had 14-15 metres of leachate. They were all saturated, which meant there was more chance of the leachate escaping."
About 70 gas wells are also sunk into the Mayton Wood waste to harness landfill emissions which are typically 45pc methane, 25pc carbon dioxide and the remainder mostly nitrogen. The gas is drawn into perforated pipes which reach 10 to 16m underground to the base of the cell, and are connected through a network of sealed pipes above ground to a powerful fan at the on-site energy plant. The generator draws in 450 cubic metres of gas per hour and converts it to electricity which is sold on to the National Grid, with the profits shared by the council and the private plant operator.
Des Holmes, the council's landfill gas project officer, said: "We're talking about the equivalent of 45 double-decker buses full of gas being sucked out of the ground every hour. The whole site is under negative suction. "The machinery is basically like a large diesel engine that has been converted to run on landfill gas.
It produces 600kW/h, enough for 500 homes, and it is constant. The only time it stops is when it breaks down, but it can keep going at that rate 24 hours a day, seven days a week. "The gas will diminish over the years, but I reckon we have got about 15 years until it stops becoming economic to produce electricity here." Gas production at closed landfills is estimated to reduce by 10pc each year as the waste degrades, prompting efforts to find more innovative ways of squeezing every last pound out of the resource. The council's strategic waste manager Paul Borrett said there was a "fine balance" between preventing rainwater seeping into the site, and keeping the waste damp enough to maintain chemical reactions.
"The amount of rain water that collects on the site is more than we can cope with, but we want the waste to stay wet so it continues to produce gas," he said. "In trying to reduce the 'tail' of the gas production, we are looking into recycling some of the leachate we have collected back through the waste. Once it gets saturated or if it dried up, we have got no gas production and no income - so it is a fine balance." The generating plant at Mayton Wood also contains a gas flare, to safely burn off any potentially dangerous pressure build-ups of methane, which is estimated to be 21 times more dangerous as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide.
Work on the landfill is continuous as the waste compacts, changing the shape of the cap and the effectiveness of the wells. But Paul Borrett said although it could take several decades for landfills to settle, there were plenty of examples of where they had been replanted as woodland, public amenities or even a pitch and putt course.
"A lot of people's view of landfill is a big pit where people throw rubbish away - an eyesore," he said. "But we have moved on from that. We manage our landfills here in Norfolk and you can absolutely get to the point where they can be turned into something that's more useable - but we do have ongoing respon-sibilities and liabilities."
Copyright 2011 Archant Regional Limited All Rights Reserved
FOSTORIA - Council took a step in helping the environment by having a first reading on a resolution dealing with landfill leachate.
Council heard Sunny Farms landfill creates "leachate", a liquid which flows through or drains from a landfill, but needed a place to continue having it treated instead of releasing it to the environment.
It was noted the city has been able to accept the landfill leachate for treatment in return for having the landfill accept the city's treated sewage sludge.
The resolution is to authorize safety-service Director James Schreck to accomplish a formal agreement to continue with the treatment process.
Mayor John Davoli noted the importance of removing items which could hold water and become a breeding ground for mosquitoes. He said the risk of having mosquitoes hatch in catch basins has been countered with a chemical that slowly releases to keep mosquito larvae from hatching. The city also is spraying for mosquitoes at night.
Police Chief John McGuire announced the receipt of a $3,900 grant from Ohio Department of Youth Services for holding youth offenders at the city jail. He said the youths must be monitored and kept away from adult prisoners.
In other news, council:
Approved a resolution authorizing the mayor to submit an application to Ohio Public Works Commission State Capital Improvement and Local Improvement Programs for funding to replace a water line on Spruce Street.
Approved an ordinance to supplement permanent appropriations to replace police equipment damaged due to sewer back up.
Heard a second reading on an ordinance amendment which is to deal with parking and storage of commercial residential refuse vehicles.
Heard a request for executive session to occur at the next council meeting for discussion of personnel.
Lanchester Landfill serves Eastern Lancaster County and Western Chester County in PA for disposal of household and construction waste. The facility produces around 10,000 gals per day of leachate.
The Problem
The facility ran a single basin sequential batch reactor (SBR) and a filter press to dewater the solids for many years, but found that they first, could not sustain a good biomass, and second, in winter could not nitrify the ammonia. The facility therefore could not reliably sustain the average monthly discharge requirements:
Evaluation
The purpose of the new system is was meet the discharge requirements consistently. Ultrafiltration and Reverse Osmosis technology was selected since this offers the best performance possible in the smallest footprint with a low capital cost. The Solution
The existing SBR basin was converted to an equalization basin, and Dynatec provided and installed a prefilter to remove larger solids, an ultrafiltration system to remove fine colloidal solids and oils, a reverse osmosis system to remove TDS, and ammonia and the other dissolved components of concern.
Several tanks already in place were utilized as process and buffer tanks between the various treatment stages.
Final ph control and chlorination was also provided.
The Process
The leachate is equalized in an equalization basin. A filter removes large solids before it enters the UF process.The leachate is processed with ultrafiltration to remove particles and oils.The UF permeate is processed with Reverse Osmosis to remove dissolved materials.
Operation
The system has operated successfully for over five years, allowing the plant to meet its discharge permit on all parameters. The influent and effluent data are provided below.
Conclusion
Dynatec Systems has built on its water treatment experience that began in the 1970's using membranes with rugged industrial reliability to produce UF and RO systems wrapped in a compact package. This made Dynatec the right choice for this project. The successful implementation of this system allows this landfill to continue to discharge to the local POTW and for use for dust control on the facility’s roads.
BERITAJAKARTA.COM — 10/10/2011 8:37:31 PM Jakarta Provincial Government ensures waste water or leachate which comes from Bantar Gebang Integrated Trash Management (TPST), Bekasi has passed management process so that waste water does not pollute the environment. Besides, leachate management process in Bantar Gebang TPST is equipped with four Water Waste Management Installation (IPAS) which has been built in the period of 1989 until 1999.
Eko Bharuna as Head of Jakarta Cleanliness Department stated that moreover, there is allegation if water pollutions is occurred in Jambe River, Bekasi which caused by leachate from Bantar Gebang TPST, and it is not true.
“All this time we continue to manage it through four IPASs so that producing good waste and not dangerous,” he expressed at Jakarta City Hall, Monday (10/10).
Therefore, his party guarantees if waste water management has been handled properly. The technology of waste water management in Bantar Gebang TPST is the best technology in Indonesia.
Leachate management in four IPASs has also met waste quality for industry activity in accordance with Environment Minister Decision No. Kep-51/MENLH/10/1995. It is used because there are no specific rules which set waste water quality in Indonesia.Besides that, Bantar Gebang has also managed waste methane gas into electricity and its management able to reduce greenhouse gas effect. Moreover, the process of sorting, composting, and recycling are also conducted in Bantar Gebang TPST.
Now, there are three hangars of compost management with 300 tons per day capacity.Douglas Manurung as Bantar Gebang TPST Managing Director stated that his party continuously conducts laboratory test towards waste water which produced by Bantar Gebang TPST routinely.
“Waste water is managed physically, chemically, and biologically. Thus it has neutral and not dangerous in environment,” he expressed. He explained that in Bantar Gebang TPST, there four IPASs which built in 1989 (IPAS I), 1996 (IPAS II and III), and 1998/1999 (IPAS IV).
Those four IPASs are be able to manage 7,115 cubic meters of waste water per day by producing maximum leachate during rainy season which is Rp 2,856 cubic meters.Besides, there are three disposal waste locations (TPA) around Bantar Gebang. They are Bantar Gebang TPST belongs to Jakarta Provincial Government, Sumur Batu TPA belongs to Bekasi Munacipilty and Burangke TPA belongs to Bekasi Regency.
It ensures only Bantar Gebang TPST has done waste water management properly. “If there found dozens of plastic laundry and small industries which have no waste water treatment, thus its waste water directly flowed to river around Bekasi. But the big question is when the river in Bekasi polluted, why only blaming to Jakarta?” he stated. View the original article here
Brussels -- Municipal solid waste (MSW) landfills, which consist of everyday consumer items, are potential long-term sources of emissions that could threaten the environment and human health if they are not managed carefully after closure. New research has presented a methodology to estimate future emission levels for closed MSW landfills and the impact of different aftercare strategies.
Kommunalunternehmen des Landkreises Bad KissingenGlobally, landfilling is the main method for disposing of solid waste. Highly industrialised countries, such as the US, the UK and Finland, extensively depend on landfilling their waste without any pre-treatment. As MSW landfills are possibly long-term sources of emissions, these sites need to be managed beyond closure. According to the EU Landfill Directive, which took effect in 1999, landfill operators have to continue managing sites after closure as long as the authority considers the landfill not likely to present a hazard to the environment any more. Cap removed after 20 years
The researchers used an Austrian MSW landfill in Breitenau as a case study to evaluate emission levels from the site and to demonstrate the long-term environmental effects of installing a final cover to prevent emissions. This site was closed in 1989 and was capped with layers of gravel (0.2 metres) and sandy silt (0.9 metres). The temporary cap was removed after 20 years (in 2009) and a composite lining system was installed as the final cover. The study focused on one landfill compartment, which contained around 35,000 tons of MSW.
Leachate emissions decrease very slowly and may have environmental impacts for centuries to come. The approach to evaluate potential future emissions was based on a comprehensive assessment of the state of the landfill and included analysis of monitoring data, investigations of landfilled waste, and an evaluation of containment systems and site-specific factors, such as climate. Future emission levels were modelled and site-specific predictions of leachate emissions were presented.
Increased leachate after flushing
The results suggest that leachate concentrations increased considerably at the site when there was a change in the water flow pattern of the waste during final cover construction. Specifically, the concentrations of leachate pollutants chloride and ammonia-nitrogen increased from 200 to 800 milligrams per litre (mg/l) and 140 to about 500 mg/l, respectively. It is found that a period of intensive flushing after the change of the water flow pattern and before the final cover installation would have reduced the amount of leachable substances within the landfill and substance concentrations in the leachate would decrease to 11 mg/l of chloride and 79 mg/l of ammonia-nitrogen within 50 years.
Different aftercare strategies
A decline in water infiltration due to the installation of an impermeable top cover may lead to high substance concentrations in the leachate for centuries (above 400 mg of chloride per litre and 200 mg ammonia-nitrogen per litre), but with low associated annual emission loads (below 12 kg of chloride and 9 kg of ammonia-nitrogen per year). However, a gradual decrease in the cover?s performance may be expected without cover maintenance and would be associated with higher emission loads of a maximum of 50 kg of chloride and 30 kg of ammonia?nitrogen.
The methodology can be applied to other closed landfill sites to illustrate the effect of different aftercare strategies on the landfill pollution hazard. The researchers caution that emission models should be treated as tools to demonstrate the effect of different landfill conditions and not as deterministic forecasts of the future.
Original source: David Laner, D., Fellner, J. & Brunner, P.H. (2011) Future landfill emissions and the effect of final cover installation ? A case study. Waste Management. 31 (7):1522-1531
The Swiss have invariably been highly environmentally aware, and for a long time have looked after their environment in an exemplary fashion. The 'Guidelines to waste product control in Switzerland ' ( EKA, 1986 ) were set in 1986, well before many states. One mandatory objective of this as a code of sound practise has been that all waste product management procedures need to provide materials which either are reusable or can be dumped in a rubbish heap without any negative or damaging environmental impact for long-term periods. This type of landfilling would be called 'final storage ' and the wastes in the final storage must naturally by inference have 'final storage quality'. Emissions from a last storage quality dump must be a close fit with the quality in the natural environment without any extra treatment. Another imperative objective of the Swiss waste product control policy is that each generation handles its waste to a standing of last storage quality. So that the reactions in a dump to take it to last storage quality have to be quick enough to all be finished inside thirty years, and ideally less.
As an effect of this policy, has each borough's solid waste landfills been proved to be able to get to the last storage quality within about 30 years after disposal? The final storage concept focuses predominantly on the solid waste itself stabilizing so that the new generation won't have to depend instead on the synthesised or natural barriers round the rubbish heap body, and the answer's a powerful no! The dump body has to reach an 'inert ' state so that the emissions from the rubbish heap have compatibility with the environment for long-term periods regardless of the retardation and attenuation capacities of surrounding materials. But this inactive state depends on geochemical properties of the dump site materials. The concern is that compounds in the inactive dump body may become 'mobile ' when the physical and chemical conditions in the rubbish heap change, and this will continue to be damaging even centuries after the dump was filled and revived.
A correct lining and a correct geological environment are basic absolute must-haves for last storages. They're compulsory for containment, for monitoring and, last although not least, for environmental security reasons.
Ditched in a dump, community solid waste ( MSW ) will at last come into contact water, which enters the rubbish heap continuously thru rain, even after capping as the seal can't ever be perfect over a period of time. As a result of this contact, many chemical and microbiological reactions occur. Natural compounds can be modified to other natural chemicals or inorganic compounds. Inorganic compounds can experience many chemical reactions and can be changed to other inorganic compounds.
The products of these reactions and parts of non-reacted MSW can, and at last will, be transported by leachate and by gas into the encompassing area. In addition, many physical processes, like adsorption, dissolution, rain, etc, can occur simultaneously. a MSW rubbish heap can be accepted as a 'partly continued chemical and microbiological fixed bed reactor'. Now that isn't a great thing to have in communication with groundwater which should regularly later be used as drinking water. It is also regarded as therapy facility where the target it is to get it to self-treat to a rubbish heap body of last storage quality. Major research and monitoring of landfills is a new development, controlled landfills having existed for 20 years or so already.
The present controlled landfills so are still in the exhaustive reactor phase in which radical microbiological decompositions occur.
The behavior of landfills in this period can be considered roughly properly using current models. But no experience exists regarding the long term behavior ( over even 30 years ) of MSW landfills. Thanks to the highly difficult nature of the systems, a specific prediction of long-term behavior of MSW landfills is almost impossible. So it's no exaggeration to claim that long-term leachate emissions from city solid waste landfills are unknown, and yet all across the globe each day, new and larger landfills are being built and stuffed with waste. It's all a big experiment and science hasn't determined the result. Even the Swiss, who are possibly some the most responsible guardians of the environment in the world have fallen far short of their 1986 ideals.
How can we be so complacent? Shouldn't we all be worried?
Article is based upon the paper "Long-Term Leachate Emissions from Municipal Solid Waste Landfills, Hasan Belevi and Peter Baccini, Switzerland, presented at the International Symposia on Sanitary Landfills held in Sardinia (Italy)"
Many people find this fact to be of great concern. Is all of landfilling just a huge experiment which might cause huge problems in the future? Part 2 of this article is available were we further discuss landfill final storage quality. Go there now to read more!
There is a method for estimating leachate generation rates. It has been produced by the American authorities to assist in the estimation of leachate production rates for a wide variety of MSW Landfills, and Hazardous Waste Landfills. In itself it represents a good exercise in rationalising the highly complex set of climatic and physical interactions which take place when rainfall incident on a real life landfill becomes leachate.
The problem is that just like any computer model, it produces results by mathematical processes which the average user will never be able to understand fully. To anyone other than academics who have studied the programming of the Model, and then furthermore have verified the calculations which they have produced by using it, against real-life data for existing closely landfills in similar climates, it should be thought of as a “black box”.
Even if the data these users put into the model is good, and that is by necessity rare as landfills are difficult to quantify in the terms that the model requires inputs, and the site operator actually then complies with the “plan” in detail. Also, the average HELP Model user does not get the chance to validate the results for the site in question. So, the results should be considered of doubtful accuracy, and yet leachate management plans are commonly based upon HELP models alone.
The result has been a tendency for leachate management systems designers underestimate landfill leachate generation that starts sooner than expected and is of higher volumes than predicted.
They would do better if landfill engineers would ensure that only HELP Model experienced hydrologists were engaged to do the modelling work, as well.
Unfortunately, there is no easy fix to this problem, and although the experienced hydrologist will know more clearly where his skills end in using the programme, and uncertainties remain, no magic wand can be waived without good verification data available when the HELP Model is run, and a close match can be shown.
The science of leachate volume prediction is not simple, and the methods to predict it need further research. However, landfill designers would do well to appreciate more fully the limits to the tools available for leachate flow prediction, and pass this knowledge on to landfill operators. By making the uncertainty inherent within the predictions clearer, such that more flexibility is provided within leachate management plans, and in forward planning, everyone would be better served.
After all, the lack of availability of an adequate method for controlling leachate can in some cases, over a period of only weeks allow leachate spillages into watercourses and aquifers which may take years to remedy. This may threaten the health and livelihoods of many people and the negative publicity from such incidences will only hasten the demise of the landfill in the long term. If the industry cannot avoid such instances of pollution, it probably should.
This article is supported by a more detailed discussion of this subject, which quotes papers and authors who have written on this subject in the past. Read the full article and if you wish, follow up on this with its sources, at: HELP Model at http://leachate.co.uk/main/
So you want to understand what leachate is? You would be surprised how many people ask that question by seeking the answer from the world wide web. This is why we've created this article to clarify what family or friends might feel you ignorant of, and even stupid for wondering about what they might think was obviously a foolish issue.
An advantage of the world wide web is that you can ask these questions on virtually any topic, and on every occasion without worrying that your buddies think about what you ought to know already about what you are discovering.
So, I want to now get on with giving an answer to your issue about what leachate really is.
First, leachate can be defined as: the liquid (mostly water) which having passed through a mostly solid substance or mixture of substances picks up on its way substances which can be both liquid and solid particles, and runs out at the bottom.
To make that more clear, here is a listing of where leachate may appear, as follows:
- landfill leachate (also known as tip leachate and dump water)
- compost leachate (sometimes called compost tea)
- manure heap leachate.
This really is a bad smelling list, so let's make an effort to de-stress he issues. It may be labeled into the following kinds of leachate,as follows:
- Fresh and smelly leachate is "acetogenic" leachate
- Older leachate from landfills which are a number of years old and is call "methanogenic" leachate, as it comes from methane gas producing landfills which produce landfill gas
The key of such are:
- in the age and the degree of odour which is much worse in the new leachates.
The unique attribute is the fact that leachate is a highly organically contaminated liquid which even in small quantities can harm streams and rivers and make groundwater undrinkable if leachate contaminated water is present in a well.
The important matter, is to recollect about leachate is that it is best to take measures to make sure that making it is avoided, because once a lot of it has been produced it is expensive to dispose of without damaging the environment.
Since you have checked this article out, and have read it to the end, you clearly needed to understand a lot more about leachate, which we hope we will, have aided, you with. As a result of this research you may quite prudently have applied the services of the world wide web wisely to answer a very specific query that it is vital that you at this time resolve. Now, it is possible for you to compliment yourself for what you have learned. By training ourselves, every one of us can obtain greater results in life, and now we undoubtedly desire that you'll do well, as well.
Realize easy methods to minimise, and then if necessary treat, landfill leachate by going to our landfill leachate web site at leachate.co.uk/main.
It is almost always the case that a problem like leachate pollution can easily be diagnosed and solved by matching the symptoms that you see, to a known problem. In fact that's what a medical doctor spends his time doing every time he interviews a patient. However, the technique isn't just limited to the practise of medicine, it works for all sorts of problems. That is why we have written this article to help you understand what the symptoms of leachate pollution are.
So, before we go any further, here are the three symptoms often experienced when quite severe leachate pollution occurs in a river or stream occurs as the river or stream passes a landfill.
Sympton No. 1 is the disappearance of the normal water-life. The first to be lost will be fish which can no longer live due to a depletion of oxygen in the water.
Sympton No. 2, which is often seen in such circumstanes is that if flow is quite slow the surface of the water may have a sheen of colour which looks almost like the rainbow colours of oil floating on water. However, if leachate is the cause instead of a flexible coating, this colourful surface layer can be cracked and dispersed by agitating it.
This most often occurs when a high concentration of dissolved iron is leaking into the watercourse, in the leachate.
Sympton No. 3: The final symptom in these cases is that if a water quality sample is taken and the concentration of ammonia is analysed the ammonia will have risen, alongside other contaminants as well, during the passage of the stream or river past the landfill.
This happens when the rain which fell on the landfill decomposes in the landfil, producing high concentrations of ammonia which are very damaging to wildlife if it gets into watercourses.
If you have seen these symptoms of leachate pollution you are lucky, as you now know the diagnosis of the problem of leachate pollution, and knowing the problem is the first, and often the most difficult part of identifying and successfully applying a solution.
Congratulations, you have now found out what is causing these symptoms and the cause of the problem. Don't stop now. There are many ways in which you can now find the solution to this problem. One method which is used, is to use the internet and continue by using a search engine to identify a website with the solution to this problem, but there are many other solutions such as asking an expert you know, or visiting a library.
Whichever method you use, we wish you a successful search for the solution you seek.
Whitchurch, Shropshire, UK -- Leading mixer and pump manufacturer Landia have reported a significant increase in the number of companies now installing aeration equipment to deal with the problems caused by composting-leachate. In addition to the obvious proven benefit of reducing foul odors, Landia's mixers are also now being specified in order to steadily and evenly introduce oxygen, maintain humidity and greatly speed up the active biology of the leachate so that it can be re-used for irrigation of wind rows. If the option to irrigate is not taken up, there is also a strong possibility that sewage discharge costs will be reduced because the aerators help decrease the amount of pollutants in the water.
(Arerator shown is not a Landia model, as no Landia videos were available.)
"Until recently, the benefits of aerating composting-leachate have largely been overlooked", said Landia UK & Eire's Agricultural Manager, Paul Davies,?but in Ireland, for example, we have installed several of our mixers at a large composting facility, where in addition to the process benefits and odor reduction, the need to turn compost has almost been eliminated and overall capacity has been increased. For many, it?s now proving to be a false economy not to have a mixing/aeration system?.
Flocculation and precipitation has often been proposed as a low cost and simple to implement process for municipal solid waste landfill leachate treatment. It is also a natural first thought for anyone new to leachate treatment that the combination of these two processes might be a very effective treatment combination, as they can be for certain other types of contaminated water.
The purpose of flocculation is to form flocs of particles that settle quickly. Generally , flocculation follows coagulation to get rid of colloidal (floc) particles quickly through rapid settlement.
These particles have dimensions in the region of one nm-1 m, and are distinguished by a abnormally large surface area. As an effect, they are very susceptible to surface forces. During coagulation, colloidal particles are destabilized to improve their ability to merge into bigger particles and then this speeds up their removal by gravity. Destabilization is helped by way of chemical reagents ( coagulants ) which are chosen to be minimize repulsive forces thru neutralization of electric charges present in colloidal particles ; this occurs by way of bonding or adsorption mechanisms.
All these points it is necessary to consider concern hydrophobic colloidal particles, for which stabilization derives from negative electrical charges. The more common coagulants are Aluminium Al), and Iron (Fe ( III )) salts, which are identified by multivalent ions with opposite charges.
These salts have an acid behaviour and, therefore, change the physico-chemical traits ( pH, alkalinity ) of wastewater. Their potency relies on the alkalinity of wastewater. Polymeric organic compounds ( polyelectrolytes ) are also often used as coagulants due to their capacity for charge neutralization ( cationic polyelectrolytes ) and to extend bridging between particles. The merger of destabilized colloidal particles is augmented by controlled stirring, and is further helped by addition of categorical chemicals ( 'flocculating agents' ). Among these, turned-on silica or clay ( inorganic flocculants ) and polyacetate ( organic flocculants ) are principally made use of.
Likewise , Al and Fe salts also behave as flocculants, since their low solubility permits rainfall with floe merger and concomitant capture of colloidal particles by electrostatic action or adsorption. Coagulation / flocculation is in a position to reduce colloidal suspension which is partly in charge of turbidity and color.
Also, organic substances, principally those with the larger range dimensions ( about one nm ), are concerned in the flocculation process, because they are adsorbed in the flocs and successively removed thru gravity settling.
Commonly, the term 'precipitation' is used to describe the phase that straight away follows flocculation, and, also, to the formation of insoluble compounds got by adding reagents which shift the chemical equilibrium towards the insoluble form of the compound or the elements which need to be removed.
Precipitation is principally applied to metals removal ( particularly heavy metals ), with metal hydroxide or metal sulphide formation, or phosphorus removal by formation of insoluble compounds with cationic metals, including Al or Fe coagulants. Many experimental studies utilizing coagulation / flocculation for the removal of organic substances from raw leachate have been conducted, essentially in the 1970s.
Salts of Aluminium and Iron together with lime were principally made use of as precipitation agents. Results were adverse, as COD removal potency lower than 40% was noted. The reason behind these low efficiencies can be ascribed to the incapacity of the method to get rid of substances aside from molecules of large dimensions and high molecular weight.
It was concluded that, higher treatment potency is possible but just for 'old leachate' ( with low BOD / COD ratios ) or for biologically pre-treated leachate. In fact it is most often needed for 'young leachate' (acetogenic leachate) which is distinguished by high levels of volatile trans-acids, i.e. small dimensions and only a little in the way of precipitable molecules, so that the removal involves only a minor fragment of the total of organic compounds in raw leachate.
Researchers also cite many other drawbacks like the rise of salt content and the low potency of ammoniacal compound removal. This last is almost always the final concern which rules out the use of this process in the minds of most leachate treatment experts.
OK. So we have told you the disdvantages. What are the alternatives? To find out how leachate treatment can be achieved without the problems cited here visit the leachate web site for all you need to know about garbage juice. If you still need a suitable reagent for this method go to the flocculant supply web site.
CROSSVILLE — Commissioners on the budget committee had to readjust sanitation fund budget figures by nearly $300,000 to allow for post-closure landfill costs.
"After we got everything done we realized we hadn't allowed for costs associated with the post-closure landfill costs. The finance office always has been allowed some leeway and authority in adjusting numbers on the budget by the committee. What we did in order to balance those anticipated costs was move 1.5 cents from debt service over to the sanitation fund," said Cumberland County Finance Director Nathan Brock.
Mike Harvel, 7th District commissioner, who also works in the county's solid waste department, said he amended the sanitation fund budget to allow more revenue for the fund by decreasing projected leachate costs from $300,000 to $200,000 and costs for recycling bins of $8,500.
"Since it (the landfill) is closed we won't have as much costs with the leachate as we had before. So that should save at least $100,000," Harvel said.
Brock said, "It's of course up to the committee, but this was the easiest way to adjust this. The tax-rate remains the same and we just moved the 1.5 cent to make the adjustment for the figures to match the projected numbers," Brock said.
With the adjustment, the projected fund balance for the sanitation fund would be $294,639.
"How do you feel about the fund balance? Could we make it a half-cent less? I'd like to see more go back to debt service. Once it's there it won't go back," 9th District Commissioner and Budget Committee Chairman Carmin Lynch said.
"I don't mind. It's up to Nathan (Brock). He pays the bills. I feel fine about it. This budget's cut to the bone. We may have to come back later in the year and adjust it again. I don't know," Harvel said.
"How does the committee feel?" Lynch asked.
Harry Sabine, 1st District commissioner then made a motion to leave the adjustment alone as it is the way the finance department adjusted the sanitation fund and draw down the fund balance on the sanitation fund if necessary later in the year. Sonya Rimmer, 8th District commissioner, supported the motion.
It was unanimously approved.
Commissioners and committee members Johnny Presley, 3rd District, and Charles Seiber, 4th District, did not attend the meeting.
With the adjustment, the breakdown of the 2011-'12 tax rate of $1.425 will be:
A WASTE management company has been fined £27,000 after residents kicked up a stink about smells from a rubbish dump.
Houghton residents complained to the Environment Agency (EA) about the landfill site.
Inspectors visited the dump in Houghton Quarry, which was twice found to be smelling so badly that it was breaking the law.
Owner Biffa admitted two offences under the Environmental Planning Regulations Act at Sunderland Magistrates’ Court.
Prosecuting for the EA, Paul Harley said inspector Gary Wallace visited the tip on February 7 last year.
He found a large pile of uncovered waste which had a foul-smelling liquid – known as leachate – running from it.
On March 2, inspector Alice Evans was called out to investigate a smell of rotten eggs in Cathedral View. Residents complained it was “pungent, gassy and a strong rotten stench”.
However she did not visit the landfill site, as it was about 9pm.
Defending, Ray Clarke called the two incidents “isolated lapses”.
He said: “Biffa would like to apologise for these regrettable incidents.
“We regret the circumstances which led to the prosecution and would like to apologise to the court, the regulator and the individuals who were affected on these particular days.”
A further three charges were dropped by the EA.
Magistrates fined Biffa £15,000 for the first offence and £12,000 for the second.
Costs of £8,250 were also ordered.
Joyce Dixon, 86, from Newbottle, a member of pressure group Residents Against Toxic Site, sat through the hearing.
Afterwards she said: “We have suffered throughout the years and it has been hell.
“We are happy that they have been brought to court.”
In a statement, Buckinghamshire-based Biffa, said: “Biffa is committed to operating all waste facilities to high standards in order to ensure the continued protection of the environment and therefore apologies for the situation which led to this prosecution.
“In addition Biffa has worked hard to rectify the situation.
“Throughout investigations, it co-operated fully with the Environment Agency and a new site management team has undertaken a series of engineering works.
“This has included the installation of further has control pipe work and site capping work in order to prevent a reoccurrence.
“The company is also working closely with its regulators and hopes to liaise more closely with key stakeholders in the community to further improve relationships.”
CHARLESTON -- Scientists call it "leachate." Trash haulers call it "compacter juice." It's the awful stuff that trickles, oozes and splashes out the back of the trucks that haul your garbage.
No question it's dirty. But our news department wondered if it was also dangerous.
(The video above is not related to the article but we thought it might interest you.)
So we had it tested. What we found shocked the seasoned experts we consulted. And it may mean the street where you live has a lot more in common with an open sewer in a Third World country than you ever imagined.
We followed compactor trucks on three separate days in different parts of Charleston, watching them crush trash and squeeze out smelly trails and pools of liquid on dozens of streets. It quickly became clear the cloudy fluid was pouring out into puddles or being drizzled in looping arcs up one street and down another.
But is it dangerous?
We took samples from a random truck on a random day. Not a scientific study, but a kind of snapshot of the contamination draining onto the streets from city garbage trucks.
"When I first saw the results for the fecal coliform, for the E. coli, I was pretty shocked at the large amount of bacteria found in the leachate," said Anita Ray, Environmental Health Director at the Kanawha-Charleston Health Department. "I am not used to seeing counts that high in things that we would routinely sample, such as outflow from a malfunctioning sewage system."
That's right. Contamination levels in the liquid are so high the only thing to compare it to is untreated sewage.
"Quite obviously," said Ray, "from the lab results that you have pulled just from this one snapshot in time, it indicates there is a pretty high potential for a public health hazard."
The bacteria E. Coli can make you extremely sick, or even kill you. It's also used as an indicator of other dangerous microorganisms. It's so dangerous, levels of E. coli in treated wastewater, for instance, can't be more than a few hundred when it's poured into the Kanawha River (depending on the number of tests). But one leachate sample we took spewing from the back of a garbage truck came back with a reading well over 4,000,000. Another was 16,000,000. And a third pegged the meter. All the lab could determine was that it was above 60,000,000.
That's why Ray calls these puddles and wet trails on your streets a potential public health hazard. Even after it dries, it's picked up on shoes, stroller wheels, anything.
"The worst case scenario, as I've said before," Ray said, "is if you have a child that has a ball or something and runs through the street, the object runs through this stuff and then the child contacts it with their hands, then puts their hand in their mouth or whatever, you've got a real potential for a transfer of that E. coli into the child's system."
How does Ray account for readings that high?
"If I might speculate, which I don't like to do ordinarily," Ray offered, "it could also be because the trucks -- and I have no idea of knowing this -- may not be cleaned out on a daily basis, and that may be showing up as a accumulative residue, if you will, of that bacteria along with the day's collection."
In other words, an unwashed truck could wind up being a big Petri dish, collecting and growing bacteria over time, and then spewing it out onto your street for your kids to play in and your dog to track into the house. And maybe make you very sick.
You can find a copy of our lab results here.
In the second part of this Hometown Investigation, we'll look under Charleston garbage trucks to figure out why so many leave wet trails of dangerous leachate behind, and we'll reveal the $10 fix for the problem.
Food waste is approximately 14% of the household waste we discard. Food waste is of concern to environmental agencies and municipalities because in landfills food waste is a primary cause of methane gas emissions, a very potent greenhouse gas, and the methanogens that food waste supports in landfills also cause the mobilization of other pollutants in landfills, resulting in an increase in both air pollutants and leachate.
In waste combustors, food waste is a cause of nitrogen oxide emissions, which is also a greenhouse gas, as well as a cause of smog and respiratory illness. Moreover, since food waste can contain as much as 70% water, it is not a high Btu fuel, and therefore is not well-suited for combustion. The best disposal option for food waste is neither landfilling nor incineration. Ideally, food waste should be composted. If you have a compost bin where you live, you can incorporate food waste into your home compost – if not, consider setting up a home compost system. Home composting avoids transportation of organic wastes, saving fuel and other resources associated with transporting waste. There are many resources describing the options for home composting, including http://www.stopwaste.org/home/index.asp?page=441 – these range from backyard bins to vermicompost (worm bins), and can be tailored to fit your needs. In some communities (such as San Francisco), food waste is collected in curbside recycling programs, usually along with yard waste. Typically, in a municipal composting system, you can compost a wider variety of wastes (including animal products and food-soiled paper) than you might be able to accommodate in home composting. Check with your local waste management authority to find options for the disposal of food and yard wastes in your community.
If you don’t have access to composting, you can dispose of most food waste in under-sink food waste disposers, also known as garbage disposals. Many municipal wastewater treatment facilities have anaerobic digesters that extract energy in the form of biogas from solids in the waste water, and most can produce soil amendments such as fertilizer from processed solids. Some wastewater treatment systems benefit from the addition of food solids, because that can make the process of converting waste into energy more efficient, but too much or the wrong types of food waste can overwhelm the system. This is one of the reasons it makes sense to use in-sink disposers as a complement to municipal and backyard composting programs. Moreover, in-sink food disposal systems increase the amount of water used at home. Although this increase is only a small amount for any individual home, the added water from tens of thousands of homes switching to in-sink disposal units can be significant. Finally, cooking oils, fats, and greases should never be disposed of down the drain. Even if you use hot water, detergents, or garbage disposals, oils can congeal in pipes and potentially contribute to sewage backups.
To sum up, food scraps should not be sent to landfills or incinerators. Instead, the best option for disposing of food waste is composting, whether at home or in a municipal system. The next best option is typically an in-sink waste disposer – but check to make sure your community isn’t running low on water before using garbage disposals, and make sure only to put allowed wastes down the drain.
