Managing the legacy of landfill - Waste Management World

Eastern Daily Press - September 24, 2011

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

View the original article here

Bantar Gebang TPST Leachate Not The Cause Of Pollution - BeritaJakarta.com

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

Long-Term Leachate Emissions From Municipal Solid Waste Landfills Are Unknown

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!

Waste firm Biffa hit with £27000 fine for stench at Wearside rubbish dump - Sunderland Echo

 Joyce Dixon of Friends of Houghton.

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.”

View the original article here

How to Manage Food Waste - Alternatives to Landfill Where it Adds to Leachate Production - Natural Resources Defense Council (blog)

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.

View the original article here

Plant to accept more leachate - Waste Management World

BUCHANAN - The wastewater treatment plant in Buchanan will accept up to three times the amount of leachate that it now takes in from the Southeast Berrien County Landfill.

It's a move that will save the landfill $250,000 per year and generate about $50,000 annually for the city, Buchanan City Manager William Marx said.

Leachate is water after it drains through the landfilled trash and collects at the bottom of the dump. It contains a variety of chemicals and other matter from contact with the refuse.

"This is quite a savings for the landfill. We have the ability to take this," said Buchanan Mayor Carla Cole, who's also a member of the Southeast Berrien County Landfill Authority board.

Under an agreement drafted in 1984, Marx said the city's wastewater treatment plant has taken up to 25,000 gallons of leachate per day from the landfill.

Additional leachate from the landfill has been shipped by tanker to a treatment plant in Elkhart at a much higher cost because of transportation costs.

Marx said he recently had lunch with landfill general manager Sonny Fuller and listened to his desire to reduce the expense of shipping leachate.

Marx said he began checking with operators at the wastewater plant and learned as much as 100,000 gallons of leachate per day can easily be safely treated at the plant.

The Buchanan City Commissioners unanimously voted in favor of an agreement this week that allows the landfill to transport additional leachate to the plant through an existing pipeline.

Marx said the move has been approved by the Michigan Department of Natural Resources.

He said the landfill will have to perform some upgrades to its lift station to increase the flows.

Commissioner Dave Hagey applauded what he said he felt was a sample of the creative solutions ordinary citizens don't realize are occurring in local government.

"These are the kind of things percolating below the surface that people don't understand," Hagey said.

Cole said transporting leachate by tanker costs the landfill $115 per hour.

"This is where our biggest savings is going to be," the mayor said.

View the original article here

Landfill Taking Drilling Waste - Wheeling Intelligencer

WHEELING - With permission from the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection, Chesapeake Energy is dumping waste at the Short Creek Landfill.

"The advantage of taking this waste to the landfills is there are protective liners in landfills and the leachate is collected and tested," said DEP spokeswoman Kathy Cosco. "This is really drilling waste, which includes drill cuttings and the drilling mud that is used in the process."

During a recent federal court hearing in a case in which Wetzel County property owners Larry and Jana Rine are suing Chesapeake for allegedly dumping benzene and radioactive material into a large hole on the Rines' property, Chesapeake attorney Timothy Miller noted Chesapeake has been taking drilling waste to the Short Creek Landfill on North Fork Road.

None of this material seems to be radioactive, however. Testifying on behalf of Chesapeake, environmental consultant Ernest Franz said a set of alarms on the sides of the landfill's entrance would sound if the truck contained radioactive material.

He said no truckloads of Chesapeake waste have been turned away from the landfill for this reason.

"Chesapeake utilizes a closed loop drilling process throughout the Marcellus (Shale). This process separates drill cuttings into steel bins that are taken off site for disposal in approved regional landfills," Chesapeake's Director of Corporate Development Stacey Brodak said when asked for further explanation of the comments from Miller and Franz.

Kosco said the DEP regulates West Virginia's landfills but does not have a specific regulation for the disposal of drilling waste. She said the drill cuttings are classified as "special waste," like gasoline contaminated waste resulting from highway accidents.

"Like when a tractor-trailer overturns and diesel fuel is spilled, the absorbent material used to clean up that spill is considered a special waste and can be taken to landfills that are permitted to accept it," she said.

Cosco said the DEP sent letters to landfills in 2009 to let them know they would need to modify their permits to accept the drilling waste. Testing for certain metals and petroleum hydrocarbons is required under the new regulations.

Dumping the waste in landfills may be a viable alternative for natural gas drillers because West Virginia's public water systems are no longer able to accept drilling waste. According to the DEP, Wheeling-based Liquid Assets Disposal allegedly dumped briny wastewater from gas drilling sites at the Center Wheeling pollution plant from January 2009 to February 2010. During this time, LAD allegedly exceeded the 9,000-pound daily chloride limitation for Wheeling's plant on about 50 occasions. This resulted in the DEP issuing a $414,000 fine against the city.

Wheeling Public Works Director Russell Jebbia has said the city will follow DEP guidelines in not accepting anymore drilling waste.

View the original article here

Poisons contributed by leachate from Malaysian landfills - Waste Management World

WHILE Malaysians are busy worrying about whether radiation-contaminated seawater surrounding Japan's nuclear disaster zone is going to wash onto Malaysian shores, or whether radiation-contaminated food from Japan is going to get past Customs inspections and be consumed by unsuspecting foodies, the fact is, the health of Malaysians have long been at risk of contamination by poisons contributed by leachate from our own landfills.

The poisons, including heavy metals like mercury, leach into groundwater and flow into our rivers, contaminating riverwater and the eco-system that depends on it. If the leach goes undetected, the poisons will flow into our body through the water, fish and shellfish that we consume.

Who is responsible for this insidious poisoning of the people? We are.

Every person who has ever thrown a dry cell battery (like the ones used in torchlights and television remote controls), a fluorescent tube, handphone batteries and other hazardous e-waste like computers, televisions and printers into their household dustbin has contributed to this potential poisoning of the people. Broken or crushed fluorescent tubes leak out mercury gas; dry cells leak out heavy metals. This e-waste, which is scheduled waste, cannot be thrown into an ordinary dustbin, cannot be picked up by an ordinary rubbish-collection lorry, and should not end up on a normal rubbish heap at a normal landfill which is not equipped to deal with leachate.

And yet, every day, more than 42 tonnes of such hazardous e-waste is thrown out together with ordinary household waste.

It is not enough for consumers to know their rights; they must also take responsibility for what they consume, and this includes how they dispose of what they have consumed. But it is one thing to educate the consumer about separating their rubbish; it is another thing altogether to make sure that the rubbish stays separated. Besides building more sanitary landfills with leachate treatment facilities, the government needs to set laws which require e-waste to be compulsorily recycled.

In June 1998, the Japanese government enacted a Home Appliance Recycling Law, in which all white goods were required to be cannibalised and their components recycled. The responsibility for this is borne by the consumer, who pays a compulsory up-front collection charge at the time of purchase, and the manufacturer, who must collect the used product later in the future and recycle it. No government subsidy is involved, as the role of the government is to provide direction to the public to take responsibility for their consumer habits.

Since Malaysia intends to make separation of rubbish at the source for household goods compulsory in 2013, it is only fair that this should be followed through with a plan for how to keep this waste separate.

View the original article here

Waste Degradation and the Idea of Acceptable Release Rate

Every landfill is an engineering project with an engineered leachate management system. Any landfill liner is part of the system. The system should be designed to accommodate a range of seepage rates from very low (the best containment that can be achieved) to high (a controlled form of dilute and attenuate) depending on the degree of environmental protection needed at that site.

Many guidance documents or statutory assessment methods use absolute terms such as "total containment", "prevention of leachate and landfill gas migration", or "impermeable". These terms can lead to the erroneous belief that such concepts are achievable, and that failure to do so is indicative of poor materials or workmanship.

Landfill Problems - A Landfill Site Anatomy - kewego
http://landfill-site.com/html/landfills__environmental_probl.php Landfill problems. Landfill lining requirements, capping and landfill restoration described. Protect the environment and groundwater.

Keywords: landfill landfills trash problems groundwater pollution waste management

Video from stevideo

Consideration of material properties demonstrates that, as all materials have a finite permeability, some finite seepage is inevitable.

For example, the frequently quoted requirements for one metre of clay with a maximum permeability of 10-9 m/s and a maximum leachate head of 1 metre implies, using Darcy's Law, a seepage rate of 1.7 m^/d/ha, and yet it is commonly referred to as the provision of "total containment".

Actual flow rates are affected by a range of ameliorating and aggregating factors. Calculation of actual seepage rates is complex, and should be carried out using risk assessment methodology carried out to a recognized methodology.

For gases, viscosity and diffusion characteristics must be taken into account. In general, mineral liners on their own are not usually effective barriers against gas migration, though they can be useful components of a multi-barrier system.

Measurements of hydraulic conductivity are of little relevance in respect to gas, as gas is able to pass through a barrier at a rate several orders of magnitude greater than that which may be measured for water.

All materials will allow the passage of liquids to an extent determined by their permeability. Risk assessment methodology will quantify the probability distribution for a derived seepage rate for a given liner/landfill situation.

This should be used either to assess the probable impact on the receiving source, or to determine the performance specification for the liner and landfill operational methods. In this way, an appropriate liner specification can be derived, incorporating a suitable safety margin.

Excessive over-engineering should be avoided, as this can itself may be considered to contravene the principles of sustainable development.

The statement we have made regarding the fact that flow through landfill containment systems will never be absolutely zero and will be a quantifiable small amount, cannot be refuted. It is a rigorously scientific approach to adopt this principle.

However, the concept of the fact that a seepage through a liner is acceptable has been resisted by some, and in particular can appear to be in conflict with the EC Groundwater Directive.

However, in certain circumstances, the discharge into the unsaturated zone of leachates containing List II substances (as defined by the EC Groundwater Directive) is permissible, provided that prior investigation has shown that this will be satisfactory and not significantly impact upon the environment.

Around the globe the primary concern will be to ensure the protection of groundwater, so for example in the EU landfill acceptability is classified by type within zones of travel time to a water source, and within resource protection areas.

Landfills are accepted as suitable for development when subject to adequate risk assessed engineered containment and operational safeguards.

Author Steve Evans has been writing about landfill daily cover and many other aspects of practical waste and secondary resource management since 2006. As you have been reading this article, there is a fair chance that you may enjoy his blog. We recommend a visit now!

A Survey of the Current and Potential Analytical Techniques for the Speciation of Radionuclides in Nuclear Waste Repository Groundwaters and Simulation Leachates

Sanitary landfills are the most widely utilized method of solid waste disposal around the world. With increased use and public awareness of this method of disposal, there is much concern with respect to the pollution potential of the landfill leachate. Depending on the composition and extent of decomposition of the refuse and hydrological factors, the leachate may become highly contaminated. As leachate migrates away from a landfill, it may cause serious pollution to the groundwater aquifer as well as adjacent surface waters. T

here is growing concern about surface and groundwater pollution from leachate. Better understanding and prediction of leachate generation, containment, and treatment are needed. This book contains a literature review of various methodologies that have been developed for prediction, generation, characterization, containment, control, and treatment of leachate from sanitary landfills. The contents of this book are divided into nine chapters. Each chapter contains theory and definition of the important design parameters, literature review, example calculations, and references. Chapter 1 is devoted to basic facts of solid waste problems current status and future trends towards waste reduction and recycling. C

hapter 2 provides a general overview of municipal solid waste generation, collection, transport, resource recovery and reuse, and disposal options. The current status of sanitary landfill design and operation, problems associated with the landfilling, and future trends are presented in Chapter 3. Methods of enhanced stabilization, recycling landfill space, methane recovery, and above grade landfilling, and closure and post closure care of completed landfills are also discussed in detail. Chapter 4 provides a general overview of Subtitle D regulations and its impact upon sanitary landfilling practices. Chapter 5 is devoted entirely to moisture routing and leachate generation mechanisms.

Examples of calculation procedure for determining the leachate quantity produced at a landfill are presented. Chapter 6 is devoted to chemical characterization of leachate that changes over the life of the fill. Both theoretical and experimental results are provided to estimate the leachate quality. Chapter 7 provides leachate attenuation processes and mechanisms. Chapter 8 is devoted to leachate collection systems. Natural soil sealants, admixed materials and synthetic membranes, their effectiveness, and methods of installation and economics are fully discussed.

Chapter 9 provides a detailed review of leachate treatment methodology. Kinetic coefficients and treatment plant design considerations are summarized for the sole purpose of assisting con- sultants to design leachate treatment facilities. Leachate treatment case histories and numerous process trains are presented for treating leachate from young landfill. The book also describes how the process train can be changed effectively as leachate quality changes with time.

Click here to buy from Amazon

Comparison of four leachate-generation procedures for solid waste characterization in environmental assessment programs (Interagency energy/environment R&D program report)

FROM THE PREFACESanitary landfills are the most widely utilized method of solid waste disposal around the world. With increased use and public awareness of this method of disposal, there is much concern with respect to the pollution potential of the landfill leachate. Depending on the composition and extent of decomposition of the refuse and hydrological factors, the leachate may become highly contaminated. As leachate migrates away from a landfill, it may cause serious pollution to the groundwater aquifer as well as adjacent surface waters. There is growing concern about surface and groundwater pollution from leachate. Better understanding and prediction of leachate generation, containment, and treatment are needed.

This book contains a literature review of various methodologies that have been developed for prediction, generation, characterization, containment, control, and treatment of leachate from sanitary landfills. The contents of this book are divided into nine chapters. Each chapter contains theory and definition of the important design parameters, literature review, example calculations, and references. Chapter 1 is devoted to basic facts of solid waste problems current status and future trends towards waste reduction and recycling. Chapter 2 provides a general overview of municipal solid waste generation, collection, transport, resource recovery and reuse, and disposal options.

The current status of sanitary landfill design and operation, problems associated with the landfilling, and future trends are presented in Chapter 3. Methods of enhanced stabilization, recycling landfill space, methane recovery, and above grade landfilling, and closure and post closure care of completed landfills are also discussed in detail. Chapter 4 provides a general overview of Subtitle D regulations and its impact upon sanitary landfilling practices. Chapter 5 is devoted entirely to moisture routing and leachate generation mechanisms.

Examples of calculation procedure for determining the leachate quantity produced at a landfill are presented. Chapter 6 is devoted to chemical characterization of leachate that changes over the life of the fill. Both theoretical and experimental results are provided to estimate the leachate quality. Chapter 7 provides leachate attenuation processes and mechanisms.

Chapter 8 is devoted to leachate collection systems. Natural soil sealants, admixed materials and synthetic membranes, their effectiveness, and methods of installation and economics are fully discussed. Chapter 9 provides a detailed review of leachate treatment methodology. Kinetic coefficients and treatment plant design considerations are summarized for the sole purpose of assisting con- sultants to design leachate treatment facilities. Leachate treatment case histories and numerous process trains are presented for treating leachate from young landfill. The book also describes how the process train can be changed effectively as leachate quality changes with time.

Price:

Click here to buy from Amazon

Composition of leachates from actual hazardous waste sites (SuDoc EP 1.89/2:600/S 2-87/043)

Treatment of landfill leachate is a challenge specially to the developing countries in the process of protecting their environment due to unaffordability of the available technologies. This study, Advanced oxidation combined with Membrane Bio- reactor (MBR) is an effort to achieve better treatment technique. It focuses on reduced need for infrastructure and smaller foot print of treatment facility by using MBR technology to perform activated sludge process. The subsequent advanced oxidation by ozone facilitates further treatment. Leachate of average age was preteated and fed into a laboratory MBR treatment module. Pretreatment efficiency and the change of MBR efficiency by recirculating the ozonated effluent were studied.

Price:

Click here to buy from Amazon

Damu inspects waste plant work at Sonsoddo - Times of India

MARGAO: Fatorda MLA Damodar Naik accompanied by the chief officer of the Margao Municipal Council (MMC) inspected the Sonsoddo site on Tuesday morning to take stock of the status of the work of the garbage treatment plant carried out by Fomento-IL&FS.

Chief executive officer of Fomento, Sridhar Kamat, was also present on the occasion.

The BJP legislator voiced his displeasure over the failure of Fomento to put in place any adequate measures to control flow of leachate from the site onto the roads. The explanation offered by Kamat that the heavy rains impeded the leachate control work at the site failed to convince Naik who demanded that the situation be brought under control within two days.

Later speaking to reporters, Naik said that he had received several complaints from the residents of the area about leachate from Sonsoddo flowing onto the streets since the last several days. "It's over seven months that the site was handed over to Fomento by the MMC and it is yet to control leachate flow.

The situation is leading to contamination of wells in the vicinity and will turn out to be a health hazard if the leachate flow is not brought under control immediately," Naik said.

MMC councillors Narayan Fondekar, Raju Shirodkar, Ciriaca Rodrigues, municipal engineer Surendra Naik and sanitary inspector Viraj Arabekar were present for the inspection.

View the original article here