Landfill seepage, costs up says BoH chairman - Worcester Telegram

In we see a citizen who is taking an interest in her local landfill, and really keeping her local council on the ball! Read the article quoted below and you will see just how well Ms. Cocalis has defined the leachate problem. I would say that she is a big asset to the community. I wonder whether, given as she says, that the landfill will continue to produce leachate for many years it would not be better to investigate building a dedictaed leachate treatment plant on the landfill site operated by the site staff. I have designed many of these and they have saved much money, and continue to do so,  the landfill owners a lot of money long term. Read on for the article:

Landfill seepage, costs are up says BoH chairman. So, an alternative model sought for leachate disposal

The Board of Health chairman, STURBRIDGE, said that not only has the level of seepage at the town's landfill gone up considerably, but the cost of removing the liquid pollutant is already way over budget. While the town allocates $26,000 for the collection of leachate at the landfill on Breakneck Road for the entire fiscal year, it has spent approximately $71,000 for leachate collection in the last six months, according to Board of Health Chairman Linda N. Cocalis. And the previous fiscal year cost was reportedly $76,000, which was $50,000 more (and triple) the original amount that was budgeted.

"I don"t know how many of you like to visit landfills and check them out? I do it as a hobby", Ms. Cocalis said, addressing the town administrator and Board of Selectmen earlier this week. "They should look as smooth as silk. They should be at about a 2 percent grade. If you are standing where the road is and you look down to where the refuge is in our landfill, there's approximately, a 6-foot drop with all the water from up here is all going down there. We don't want that. That is really, really bad."

Ms. Cocalis, who also refers to leachate as "garbage juice," blames the open cell being in the middle of two capped cells as the main culprit for the town?s increasing leachate problem. When the town capped its second cell at the landfill in 2009, they opened a new (and its final) cell, which is in the middle of two capped cells.

Last year, an estimated 2,462,000 gallons of leachate were collected from the landfill and taken to the wastewater treatment plant a few miles away for disposal. In 2010, an estimated 555,000 gallons were collected. Ms. Cocalis said every month, the town is spending $12,000-$13,000 in removal costs.

"Every day, there's a truck going there four or five times a day," Ms. Cocalis said. "The longer we wait, the more it's going to cost."

Ms. Cocalis suggested the town look into purchasing a 3,000-gallon pumper truck to collect the leachate, conducting a cost benefit analysis of the entire operation, immediately go out to bid for leachate collection and figure out ways to mitigate the amount of leachate seeping at the landfill.

Selectmen Chairman Thomas R. Creamer said he was alarmed by the "pretty tremendous rate" the leachate is increasing and the "inexplicitly rising" costs to collect it.

?To me, the biggest concerns are to identify why there has been nearly a 100 percent (price) increase already over last year?s number for the whole year, in the first six months, and, what alternatives does the town have in trying to reduce the costs,? Mr. Creamer said. ?We can?t keep going back to the residents on a regular basis, seeking emergency fund transfers.?

Town Administrator Shaun A. Suhoski said he has discussed an "alternative model" in leachate disposal, which includes bringing the process "in-house". Furthermore, a meter system has been installed in the wastewater treatment plant that will electronically monitor the amount of leachate treated at the plant, Mr. Suhoski said.

"We wish we had a little more time to get all the parties at the table and have a plan ready before we highlighted the problem", Mr. Suhoski said. I think bringing it to the Board of Selectmen's attention is helpful so the community is aware of this. By educating the community, now we can look at options, alternatives, for cost savings. And that's the plan. That's what we're doing".

"Ten years, maybe even longer, after we close that landfill, we will still have leachate", Ms. Cocalis said. "You will have to still collect it, by law, forever and ever, until it stops making leachate. There are landfills in Rome from the Roman times that actually still make leachate today".

View the original article here

Leachate Time Bomb in Cincinnati

Resident Jeff Moore must realise that he is right to be concerned. We quote below an article which suggests that a great folly was comitted when this landfill was allowed. Now it will inevitably cost a lot of money to protect a major water supply source:

JACKSON TWP. - Jeff Moore worries about the 1 billion pounds of toxic materials buried less than a half-mile from his home on Aber Road.

It's in a 208-acre landfill in rural, northeastern Clermont County - one of only two dumps in Ohio ever licensed to take hazardous waste. And while the site on Aber hasn't accepted such waste in more than 20 years, Moore knows it contains "some real bad stuff," including PCBs, benzene, arsenic, cyanide, toluene, mercury, pesticides and thousands more contaminants.

He fears that toxins could seep into groundwater and the creek that runs behind his home. And he questions what will happen when the owner's 30-year requirement to monitor the landfill expires in 2027.

Those concerns are shared by Clermont County officials and their environmental consultants, who for many years have pointed to troubling issues at the closed landfill known as Cecos. Since 1988, the county has spent $10 million on legal and consulting fees, mostly in an attempt to fix what it says are flaws in the existing plan to monitor the site.

"It's not so much that the county expects there to be an immediate major mishap. It's really about protecting us in the future," said county administrator David Spinney.

The county's biggest concern is that the landfill poses a potential threat to Harsha Lake, a main source of the county's drinking water.

While the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency and the landfill's owner say measures to protect the environment are in place and working as designed, the county contends that its statistical analysis of data that Cecos is required to report indicates some leakage has already occurred.

"Is it a catastrophic leak? No. Is this a precursor of what will continue to happen? The answer is yes. Eventually it will leak enough that it will present a problem," said Linda Aller, noting that such landfills were designed to contain material for 30 years. She is principal geologist with Bennett & Williams, a Westerville, Ohio-based environmental consulting firm that has been working on Cecos issues for Clermont County since the late 1980s.

Other technical experts hired by the county agree.

Brent Huntsman, president of Beavercreek, Ohio-based Terran Corp., is a geologist who specializes in ground water issues. Given the amount of waste at Cecos, he said, "it's just a matter of time before it escapes into the environment."

That has happened elsewhere. He points, for example, to U.S. Department of Energy hazardous waste landfills such as the Mound Site in Miamisburg. "If you look at all of their large installations, yes, all of their landfills have failed."

At Cecos, "It's going to be sooner rather than later," Huntsman said. "It's going to be within our lifetime."

That's why the county is spending an estimated $5.6 million to expand the water treatment plant at Harsha Lake and outfit it with a sophisticated granular-activated carbon filtration system, Spinney said. But even the new system, he added, "doesn't take care of everything" that might escape from the landfill.

For its part, the Ohio EPA said the current landfill monitoring plan, generally speaking, offers adequate protection. And it said Phoenix-based Republic Services Inc., which became the dump's owner in 2008 when it merged with Allied Waste Industries Inc., is fulfilling its monitoring requirements.

But those requirements are "grossly inadequate," said G. Fred Lee, an environmental consultant in El Macero, Calif., whose contract with Clermont County ended in 1999. Lee, a former university professor with a doctorate in environmental engineering from Harvard, has in the past five decades evaluated the environmental impacts of about 80 landfills, including Cecos.

Republic and Ohio EPA are working to resolve issues on a revised monitoring plan for the landfill, said Connie Dall, Republic's environmental manager at Cecos. She said the company hopes to submit an amended plan early next year.

But if the long, troubled history of Cecos offers any indication, a final resolution isn't likely soon.

Cecos dates to 1972, when Clermont Environmental Reclamation began operation of a 19-acre sanitary landfill. Within a few years, the U.S. EPA approved it for hazardous waste disposal, and the site eventually grew to 208 acres.

Clermont County documents say Cecos includes seven football stadium-sized excavations, or cells, up to 56 feet deep, each containing hazardous waste. Liners and recompacted clay are supposed to keep leachate - the toxic liquid that seeps through waste in the cells - from escaping.

The waste came from many sources, including chemical companies, power companies and businesses with household names, such as Procter & Gamble, IBM, General Electric and Westinghouse, Spinney said.

In the 1980s, criminal charges for violations of hazardous waste laws were brought against Cecos, and both the Ohio and U.S. EPA denied hazardous waste permits. By 1990, hazardous waste disposal had stopped.

Cecos submitted a plan, spelling out how the facility would be maintained and monitored. After a number of revisions, the Ohio EPA approved the plan in September 1994.

Clermont County appealed, saying the plan didn't provide adequate long-term protection to residents. The appeal dragged on for 13 years, never reaching a resolution.

So in 2007, the county decided to take a different approach. It reached a settlement with the Ohio EPA and Cecos, calling for Cecos to submit a revised monitoring plan and the county to submit a petition outlining its issues of concern.

The county's petition, filed last December, includes 2,358 pages of appendices and attachments in support of 15 issues the county says should be addressed. It asks, among other things, for continued or stepped-up monitoring of groundwater wells, leachate, surface water and underdrains, which are piping networks that detect leachate movement through the bottom of cells.

Bonnie Buthker, acting chief of the Ohio EPA's southwest district office, said some of Clermont County's requests can't be granted because they exceed the agency's regulatory authority. She declined to be specific, noting the county's petition is "still under review."

She did say, however, that EPA's interpretation of data submitted by Cecos indicates there has been no leakage from the cells that contain hazardous waste.

"Not from the cells, no," Buthker said. "Not in the 14 years we've been monitoring this."

But the county's consultants, using the same reported data from Cecos, arrived at a different conclusion.

"The consistent presence of volatile organic compounds in the underdrains in all the ... cells indicates that leachate is migrating into them. And once contamination enters the underdrains, it is no longer contained," the county says in its petition.

Spinney, who will retire as county administrator at the end of the year, said, "You'll never get me to say (the leakage) is minor. Is it a health hazard to people in the surrounding area or to the water supply today? No, I don't believe so from what I've seen. But it's an indication of a leak, which means there a potential for a health hazard in the future."

Dall said volatile organic compounds were detected in underdrains in the older part of the landfill, but that corrective measures were put in place to "close that off from the environment, so those (compounds) can't get anywhere. All the analysis we're getting is showing that everything is where it's supposed to be."

She said Republic is "making sure we are a good citizen in Clermont County and the state of Ohio. ... We are doing what the Ohio EPA and the U.S. EPA are asking us to do, and we're doing it appropriately.

"The facility is a safe facility."

As for the landfill's liners, two types were installed at Cecos to serve as a barrier between waste and the environment. Older cells have a 30-mil (slightly less than 1/32 of an inch) synthetic rubber liner; newer cells have an 80-mil (or slightly less than 1/12 of an inch) liner made of high-density polyethylene.

"These liners will fail," said Lee. "That's not a debatable issue."

Said Buthker: "It's really variable on how long liners can last. That's why you have other systems in place (such as wells, leak detectors and underdrains) to monitor to make sure if you have a leak, you can address it right away."

She added: "We feel the existing monitoring plan is protective. We're working to improve that monitoring plan."

Jeff Moore is wary. "Some people put their faith in the government, like they ain't never going to do (anything) wrong, but I'll tell you, I've seen it go the opposite direction on that," he said.

"You know what happened at Fernald," he added, referring to the former uranium-processing plant 18 miles northwest of Cincinnati. It was notorious for contaminating the environment and required a $4.4 billion cleanup.

Many of Moore's neighbors don't share his concerns. A reporter spoke with about a dozen homeowners on roads that border Cecos property, and most echoed the thoughts of Floyd Brate, a Smokey Road resident who said the landfill was a non-issue, "as long as they keep monitoring it like they're supposed to."

Ohio law requires such landfills to be monitored for 30 years after closure, which in the case of Cecos extends to 2027. At that point, the owner could petition to walk away.

"They would have to demonstrate that the waste was no longer there and no longer posed a threat," Ohio EPA's Buthker said. "That would be very difficult to demonstrate." She noted that Ohio's environmental regulations say the state EPA director can extend the monitoring period.

But Clermont County officials want more of a guarantee. They say that because most of the waste in the landfill will remain dangerous "virtually forever," a plan should be established to care for the landfill into perpetuity.

View the original article here

Dynatec Provides MBR System for Hazardous Landfill

The Problem

A hazardous waste landfill in Belleville, MI, owned by the Environmental Quality Company had a problem. They needed to develop a treatment process to remove COD, high TDS, heavy metals, phenol, PCB’s, Ammonia, and Molybdenum from the landfill leachate. Current treatment comprised of chlorination and activated carbon treatment was very costly.

Evaluation

The treatment process was challenging. The chemical treatment supplied was based upon the experience batch treating the wastewater and numerous bench scale treatability studies. An MBR process was selected for piloting because it was the best option to nitrify, reduce the high COD and phenol and overcome the potentially toxic conditions. Dynatec was engaged to supply a pilot treatment plant to be used as an investigative tool for the design of the full scale treatment process. The pilot operation phase of the project lasted almost 3 years, where problems were identified and solutions found.

Some unique challenges offered by this application were:

Foaming - Toxicity from the metals, phenol , and other unidentified substances

Mixed Liquor conditioning

Biological temperature sensitivity

Sensitive nitrification process

Difficult chemical precipitation of metals

Small footprint required

Dynatec was engaged to supply and install the full scale system because of Dynatec’s experience with the treatment technologies employed, their familiarity with the project, and the requirement for a high rate MBR process operating at high MLSS.

The Solution

Dynatec provided and installed a system that included a stainless steel insulated covered bioreactor with both heating and cooling capabilities to control temperature within a range suitable for achieving the treatment goals. To solve the foaming problem, a combination of jet aeration, defoamer, DO control, and concentrate return splash plates were employed along with an emergency potable water spray to prevent foam-over.

The membrane filtration equipment was designed to make efficient use of a small existing building that houses the membranes, controls, dewatering and other equipment.

The process includes chemical / physical treatment of the leachate both before and after the MBR. The post MBR chemical precipitation is for Molybdenum. The MBR removes compounds that were found to interfere with the precipitation process. The treated water is discharged to sanitary sewer.

A sludge tank receives the solids from both clarifiers of the pre and post chemical treatment systems as well as the WAS. Additional iron and lime is added and mixed in the sludge tank prior to feed to the filter press for dewatering. The solids are discharged within the landfill.

The Process

The process design consists of the following:

The hazardous wastewater is pretreated for removal of CN, Cr, Cu, Pb, Ni and Zn.The hazardous wastewater is mixed with non hazardous wastewater in a 500,000 gallon EQ tank to help make nitrification work. Approximately 65% of the wastewater discharged to the EQ tank is hazardous WW and 35% is non haz.The WW in the EQ tank is sent to the MBR for treatment for reduction in phenol ammonia nitrogen and COD.The MBR permeate is post treated for removal of molybdenum. The moly is apparently organically bound and does not precipitate adequately in the pretreatment.Sludge from the metals precipitation is mixed with WAS and dewatered in a filter press.

Operation

The system started up in March of 2010. As expected, the activated sludge took less than two months of conditioning before effective treatment was achieved due to the information and knowledge that was gained during piloting. A special bacterial culture was added to promote nitrification, which improved performance.

The COD  of the hazardous wastewater varies significantly, typical values observed have been between 5,000 mg/L and 12,000 mg/L. After blending with non hazardous leachate the COD is typically in the range between 3,000 mg/l and 6,000 mg/l.

The system operator is able to adjust conditions as needed. The system is currently operating at high mixed liquor concentration, an average of 24,000 mg/l. The jet aeration system makes operation at this level possible. Temperature ranges from a low of 25’C in the winter to 36’C in the summer. A natural gas fired heater heats the leachate in the winter in the recirculating loop between the bioreactor and the UF. The heater runs very little as the tank is covered and insulated. The system also has the ability to cool the mixed liquor as the temperature approaches 38’C to prevent thermophilic conditions from developing.

The continuous addition of defoamer is necessary. The concentrate return hits splash plates in the reactor to create a spray of sorts to help depress foam. There is also a fresh water spray available for use that rings the top inside of the reactor.

After startup, the system is operating as designed. The operators have used the emergency potable water spray to prevent foam-over of the bioreactor a couple times, with no other major issues. The system is exceeding expectations. Phenol in the effluent is typically below 0. 1 mg/L and metals removal is consistently below discharge requirements and below toxicity levels required to protect the biological process.

Conclusion

This is a very tough job. The complete and comprehensive system that Dynatec provided made this a success, and many lessons were learned for future projects. Dynatec was the right choice for this difficult MBR application. The many years of experience Dynatec has applying membranes to wastewater has enabled it to design and provide systems that perform in even the most difficult applications.

The system payback is expected to be very short. The system is meeting all its treatment objectives.

View the original article here

EU Citizens Never Have to Worry About Chemicals which US Landfill Operator Cleaning Up from Leachate

As an EU citizen it is easy to feel very smug. Once upon a time the US was regarded as an advanced nation, but in this article we are told about groundwater contamination from a chamical which is a liquid disposed to tis US landfill which has long been banned throughout all EU states. No EU landowner need fear that tetrachloroethene and trichloroethene will appear in their groundwater since the dispoal of hazardous chemicals like this, and indeed all liquids to landfill was banned more than 10 years ago. The US are crazy to still allow such practices. Read more and find out what this is all about:

One week after the Virginia Supreme Court overturned a $9 million judgment against Campbell County in a contamination lawsuit, officials said they remain committed to removing the leachate that got into the groundwater on Claude and Virginia Royals’ Rustburg property.

“We said from the beginning there was no question that the leachate was from the landfill,” said Campbell County Administrator David Laurrell. “We’ll continue to move forward until we completely take care of it.”

In 2002, the Royals discovered their well water had been contaminated by the neighboring landfill and for the last 10 years the county has been working to remove the chemicals.

Recent water samples show remediation is working, Laurrell said.

The Royals continue to use the well water on their property, avoiding the contaminated wells. They also have access to county water if they wish to connect to it.

Several times each year, Campbell County tests water from 51 sites on the landfill and the Royals’ property. The tests look for more than 200 different chemicals. Of the 3,800 recent test results, only 23 showed elements in the water at levels higher than allowed by the Environmental Protection Agency’s groundwater protection standards, said Clif Tweedy, deputy county administrator.

Tetrachloroethene and trichloroethene are two of the chemicals that continue to exist in the groundwater at amounts exceeding EPA standards. Tetrachloroethene, or PCE, is a synthetic liquid commonly used in the textile industry and in dry cleaning as a metal degreaser. It is considered a potential human carcinogen and consuming water with elevated levels over the course of a lifetime may increase cancer risk.

Under certain conditions, PCE in groundwater can degrade into trichloroethene, or TCE, and vinylchloride, which are more toxic.

Two of the 51 water sites tested have elevated TCE levels of 7 parts per billion. The maximum allowable by the government is 5 ppb.

When water treatment began in 2002, TCE was 136 parts per billion.

One site tested had an elevated PCE level of 8.3 parts per billion. As with TCE, the maximum allowable level is 5 ppb.

In 2001, TCE levels were as high as 29.8 on the site.

PCE and TCE — and benzene, vinylchloride and methylenechloride — are chemicals commonly found in landfills or in nearby leaks, said Tweedy.

At the Rustburg landfill, water testing shows the levels of benzene, vinylchloride and methylenechloride are so low they cannot be detected at most sites and where it does exist, it is well below the government requirements.

“I think the remediation is going much quicker than we originally thought,” said Laurrell, adding some of the Volatile Organic Compounds, or VOCs, have dropped by 95 percent.

“That’s just a remarkable improvement in a short amount of time,” he said.

In 2003, 95 percent of the wells tested showed contamination above allowable levels. Today, eight years later with an even greater number of wells in place, just .5 percent are above the standard.

The entire remediation system has been fully operational for two years.

The landfill received gas vents in 2002, a gas extraction system in 2003 and the first of several series of groundwater remediation wells in 2005.

Although the Supreme Court decision on Jan. 13 closed the case for the county, the Royals have until Jan. 23 to request a rehearing with the Supreme Court.

The Royals’ attorney has not revealed if the couple will pursue one.

View the original article here

US Municipal Body Which is Both Gamekeeper and Poacher Gets into Trouble with Leachate

It looks to me as if this is a simple case of municipal body which owns and runs this landfill is both gamekeeper and poacher has got into trouble, and the citizens would do best to change that situation first, rather than spend on a legal case arguing about it. Here is a quotation from the article:

The Citizens for Clean Water board of directors plans to discuss funding for a lawsuit to compel the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality to close the NABORS landfill in north Baxter County, according to CFCW president, Bob Cohee.

The CFCW board's next meeting is Feb. 7.

Cohee said Wednesday he will recommend the creation of a legal fund of at least $20,000 to move forward with the suit.

The suit, if filed, would mark the second time CFCW has called out the regulator in a court of law to enforce state regulations regarding the NABORS landfill. Cohee says the NABORS landfill has accumulated a long record of violations pertaining to overfilled areas within the landfill and a plume of pollutants seeping into sample waters taken from within and around one overfilled area.

The owner of the landfill? The Ozark Mountain Regional Solid Waste Management District ? has been trying to sell it for a year to North Arkansas Board of Regional Sanitation, an incorporation of Baxter and Marion counties and the city of Mountain Home. Investment bankers have declined to offer $17 million issue public revenue bonds to finance the transaction.

Ozark Mountain Regional Solid Waste Management District's board of directors voted Tuesday to set a March 13 deadline for the North Arkansas Board of Regional Sanitation proposal and to offer NABORS to other prospective buyers after that date.

"We are extremely opposed to privatizing," Cohee said. "The landfill is in bad enough shape as it is. Privatizing would be total havoc."

Citizens for Clean Water sued ADEQ in 1989 to compel the regulator to require former owners, RLH Inc., to stop leachate observed flowing from the side of a waste storage cell to an area of the landfill not served by a leachate retention pond. That outing resulted in a correction before the issue came to trial. CFCW's legal fee of $11,000, Cohee said.

RLH sold the landfill and a companion hauling service to Northwest Arkansas Regional Solid Waste Management District (now Ozark Mountain Regional Solid Waste Management District) for $12 million on Sept. 1, 2003, after two years of negotiations between RLH and ADEQ regarding ongoing regulatory violations.

On Sept. 23, 2005, the waste management district sought authorization to enlarge the storage area within the 700-acre tract situated 10 miles from Mountain Home's public water intake on Norfork Lake.

Several notices of violation from ADEQ between 2003-05 against RLH were settled early in 2005, with the district and RLH both signing a consent order in which RLH did not concede fault and ADEQ levied a $250,000 fine, then ADEQ's largest fine ever.

The agreement also included a corrective action plan regarding an overfilled area in the landfill which is now a five-year-old correction action plan and the subject of five failed attempts by four engineering firms to correct.

Inspectors in 2005 had found 101 inches of leachate on top of a geo-plastic liner permitted to hold only 12 inches, according to Bulletin archives.

ADEQ also has a $500,000 letter of credit from a bank guaranteeing funds to properly close the offending portion of the landfill should RLH shirk its responsibilities.

NABORS had consumed all of a $1 million line of credit from Arvest Bank when Ozark Mountain Regional Solid Waste Management District took control of the landfill in February 2009 from the Northwest Arkansas Regional Economic Development District.

NABORS finished 2008 with a deficit of $830,000 and lost another $945,000 in 2009.

View the original article here

Vilappilsala Leachate Treatment by Biomethanation Bound to Fail Long-Term

Existing leachate lagoon - where is the liner?

Nepal is so isolated in so many things, and presumably unable to engage top international advice, that it should engender sympathy for their struggle. Here is another example of that in the area of leachate treatment. They are intending to use Leachate Treatment by Biomethanation, which of course long term won't result in a leachate which is low enough in ammoniacal nitrogen to discharge safely either into a watercourse or even into a sewage works for further treatment. Plus, it won't protect their water supplies at all.

In any event if they have a lined landfill they will get Leachate Treatment by Biomethanation free, within the landfilled waste. They should be collecting the much larger yield of landfill gas from the landfill itself anyway, and if CDM is resurrected, they should be able to get Carbon Credits for that landfill gas to build their LFG extraction project.

They will in the end realise that they must treat their leachate aerobically in order to reduce the highly toxic ammonia component, and although biomethanation is fine if it. In order that you can follow this story I have quoted most of the article below. But, do follow the original article link below for the full story:

The agitation against the Vilappilsala solid waste treatment plant heads to another deadlock, the city Corporation is on a last-minute bid to operationalise a Leachate Treatment Plant (LTP) under construction there.
Leachate from the plant seeping into the nearby Meenambally canal and the resulting ground water pollution in the area has been among the main causes of concern for people of Vilappil panchayat and the Vilappilsala Janakeeya Samithi.
Despite the intensifying agitation and interventions by several authorities, including the Ombudsman for Local Self Government Institutions, the city Corporation has not been able to complete the work on LTP, more than a year after its deadline.
Apart from the 3,500-metre-cube collection tank and anaerobic pond, the construction of six other component tanks of the LTP is yet to be completed. However, instead of waiting for the completion of the whole project, the Corporation is now trying to direct and store leachate in the completed collection tank as a temporary measure to tackle water pollution.
On Monday, a team of engineers and officials from the Kerala Sustainable Urban Development Project (KSUDP) Project Implementation Unit of the Corporation visited the plant to assess how leachate from the accumulated garbage and various other points in the plant can be channelled into the LTP collection tank.
“Construction of the collection tank is over and leachate can now be stored in this tank. From here, it will be directed to the anaerobic pond where bio-methanation of the liquid will take place. The bio-filters in the pond will be installed within a week by which time we will also be laying pipes to channel leachate to the collection tank,” a project engineer said.
He said the bio-methanation process in the anaerobic pond, in its full capacity, will take around 70 days within which period other works on the leachate treatment plant would also be completed.
The LTP coming up at Vilappilsala follows a seven-step treatment method at the end of which the Biological Oxygen Demand in the waste discharge will be brought down to 30 mg per litre from 5,000 mg per litre. Corporation officials now say that the leachate treatment plant will be made fully operational by January, 2012. “Before that, we will solve the issue of water pollution,” said Deputy Mayor G. Happy Kumar.

While Leachate Treatment by Biomethanation will certainly reduce the Biological Oxygen Demand it won't reduce the ammoniacla nitrogen which is essential to remove to below 5 mg/l, and 7 steps seems excessively complicated for any leachate treatment plant. At some point they will need a simple SBR aeration leachate treatment plant of the type I have designed more than 30. (See http://leachate.co.uk for more information.)

Corporation Health Officer D. Sreekumar said the leachate treatment plant coming up at Vilappilsala would only be the second such plant in the country. “Nashik is the only municipality in the country to have an LTP of this magnitude and capacity. The lack of prior experience was also a reason for delay,” he said.

Keywords: Leachate treatment, leachate Treatment by Biomaethanation, agitation, solid waste treatment plant
View the original article here

A Review of the New 2012 Edition of the "Introduction to Waste Technologies" eBook

New goods and services are continually coming on the web. It's tricky to keep abreast of them all. We become bored with the continuous notices for new releases, often just stop listening to them. Since there's so very little of worth in the majority of offers thrown at us, we become calloused and bored with them, usually just dismiss them all. Often this works O.K for us and saves a lot of time.

Infrequently though, there may be exceptions...

You will find surprising nuggets of value in-between your junk offers. For instance, there's an eBook within the waste technology and Mechanical Biological Treatment ( MBT ) category, named "An Introduction to Waste Technology" that has just been completely updated for 2012 and has just been placed for sale, which shows a lot of value.

It's been dreamed-up and developed by Steve Last, who's now offering it for sale. So let me know, why is it getting attention and gaining a following? Talking generally, what it has been doing currently is gradually selling since it was last updated in 2008.

You will find three unique strengths that make "An Introduction to Waste Technology" stick out from its competition, three principal positive aspects that consumers mention in their many testimonials. These three serious advantages are clear and concise outlines of every one of the main the waste technology and processes used to direct waste away from landfill, a writer who knows his subject and waste treatment process flow charts and tables of pros and cons for each waste technology described. Let's look at each one of these in greater detail.

Read the full review here:

A review of the New 2012 Edition of the "Introduction to Waste Technologies" eBook

or, click here here to go to the sales page.