How Worm Tea Is Different From Worm Leachate

It's important to know that worm tea (also known as vermicast tea) is different from what a worm leachate is. Vermicast tea is basically a mixture that has been brewed, aerated, and blended with molasses.

This product then becomes the food source for the microbial life that is present in the brew. Leachate on the other hand is what you usually find at the base of the worm bin. It is basically the liquid that drips out from the composter (usually a tray underneath the bin helps contain the drippings).


The above guest video is not associated with the author. However, we though it would be of interest to our readers.

Now, never mistake the run-off from the worm composter as worm tea. Remember that it's the leachate that drips out of the worm composting bin. This organic compost tea from worms castings are made through aerated water, while the leachate is something that's already been made available. But you've got to take note that having a leachate isn't always a good thing. It might actually indicate that your bin might be in a very wet situation.

So, if there's too much water dripping from the bin, then you might have to check on your worms right away. You can't afford to lose your compost worms from drowning, wouldn't you? But if it does happen, you can resolve this situation by putting in some newspaper strips, so that these may be able to absorb the excess water inside the bin. There's also one more solution to this, and that's purchasing a worm composter that has a spigot attached on the base.

Basically aerated compost tea from worm castings is brewed using chlorine-free water. A bubbler is usually left inside the container (for where the tea is being made) to help aerate the mixture; and is then left to ferment for about 48 hours. This will help keep the aerobic microbes to grow and keep thriving. Now as soon as the worm compost tea is done, the brew itself should be used right away so that your garden soil and plants may be able to fully benefit from it. It can get spoiled almost immediately too.

If you must know, worm castings fertilizer tea is full of aerobic microbes. So expect the opposite out of a leachate as it contains nothing but anaerobic life forms (has a low population of microorganisms). So if you want a good fertilizer source for your garden, then you should choose to use your worm tea option. Never use the latter as it will do no good to your soil and plants.

If you want to harvest castings from worms, and be able to brew your own worm tea, then choose to buy worms at Gardenworms.com. They supply vermicomposting worms at very affordable packages.

Recycling Household Waste and Vermicomposting for Leachate Tea

While recycling is certainly more prevalent these days; we are also consuming a lot more and therefore generating more waste per person (on average) than we were a couple of decades ago.




The above video is not associated with the text of  article but we thought the video would add interest to this page.

Something most of us can do to minimize the amount of garbage we send to landfills is to compost our organic waste such as newspapers, vegetable waste and cardboard - even coffee grinds and eggshells. There's a very easy way to do so that has minimal smell, doesn't take up much space, can chew through a heck of a lot of waste quickly and leave you with a very valuable product.

The workers you'll need to assist you are worms and the process is called vermicomposting.
Our worms, collectively known as "Bob II" have been working hard for us for a couple of years now. They require minimal care, are quiet, never go on strike and incredibly cheap to maintain. Even setting up a worm farm isn't terribly expensive; our ready-made farm cost $50 and the initial worms about $15. Since starting a worm farm we've cut down on the amount of waste we'd usually bin by at least 25%. Over a year that translates into hundreds of pounds.

Our worms spend their entire lives eating our trash, stopping only to reproduce. As far as I know, worms don't even "sleep". A pound of worms (around 4,000) can eat half a pound of organic material in 24 hours!
What's left after their digestion, called castings, is one of the best and safest fertilizers around. It's also ph neutral meaning that it's halfway between acidic and alkalinic - just like water. Castings feel and smell like good soil because effectively that's all they are; in fact, it's said that worm castings are 5 times richer in nutrients than good topsoil.

Castings aren't the only valuable product created, a fluid called leachate that seeps through the material the worms digest is also highly prized. Brown in color, it has no odor to speak of,
"Worm tea", another non-smelly popular worm by-product is made by soaking worm castings in water.

So, what can you feed your worms?

coffee grounds paper cardboard including egg cartons vegetable peelings and waste eggshells The general rule of thumb is if it the waste is plant based, worms can deal with it; with a couple of exceptions; being:
pineapple - contains an enzyme that will dissolve the worms citrus and highly acidic vegetables such as onions (ok in small amounts) green grass clippings should be added sparingly as large amounts generate excess heat and produce ammonia which will kill the worms You can purchase worm farms at most hardware stores or make one yourself.

You'll need:

A plastic tub with a lid A pan for leachate runoff Spacers to place between the tub and the catchment pan All you need to do then is to drill a series of small holes in the walls of the tub to allow air to circulate and holes in the bottom to allow for drainage. Don't be too concerned about worms escaping as they don't like the light. If worms are escaping, it means there is something wrong with the farm; either too dry, too damp or too acidic. You never have to worry about your worms overpopulating as they will self-regulate reproduction. The more waste that's available, the more the worms will reproduce; but bear in mind don't "overfeed" in the early stages while your population is getting established.

To start your worm farm off:

Place a layer of small pebbles in the bottom to assist with drainage Add a couple of loose layers of damp newspaper, building it up to a inch or so thick Then it's just a case of adding waste as it becomes available. The worms will then chew their way up through the material leaving their castings behind. When your tub is full and you can fit no more waste in, don't start pushing it down as you'll most likely crush your composting pals. Remove the layer of waste and a few inches of castings as this will contain most of your worms.

With what's left, put it to one side for use on your garden, add the scraps and worms back in and you're all set to go again. If you purchase a large worm farm, you'll find that most have removable panels at the bottom of the sides to allow for easy removal of castings. It's kinder on the worms and less mess for you as well.
For castings and leachate, while you can use them as is without dilution, the recommended mix is one part leachate/castings to 4 parts soil or water.

Other vermicomposting tips.

Use proper composting worms; garden worms won't be effective Never add any sort of animal products to the farm, including dairy Waste mix should be kept moist, not too dry or wet. A sign of mix that's too wet is a methane or ammonia type odor and worms trying to escape Dampen paper and cardboard products before adding Keep the farm in a shady place Worm farming is cheap, easy, fun and beneficial to the environment. Experience the satisfaction of vermicomposting; I highly recommend it!

Michael Bloch is the author and owner of Green Living Tips.com, an online resource powered by renewable energy offering a wide variety of earth friendly tips, green guides, advice and environment related news to help consumers and business to reduce costs, consumption and environmental impact on the planet.

A Scheme for the analysis of pollutants in groundwater and leachates contaminated by hazardous chemicals

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.

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.

Click here to buy from Amazon

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

Brookhaven Town to Send 9 Million Gallons of Leachate Per Year to Resource ... - Patch

Steve Bossotti, Covanta’s Vice President, Supervisor Mark Lesko and Rick Sandner, Covanta’s Vice President Regional Business Manager. Town of Brookhaven

Earlier in the month, the City of Brookhaven voted collectively on a resolution moved to modify a community solid waste and ash disposal agreement with Covanta Hempstead Company.

The plan allows them them to accept and transport roughly 9,000,000 gallons of leachate each year from the Brookhaven City Rubbish heap . Covanta incinerates borough solid waste to generate salable electricity and will use the leachate as "slaking water" to extinguish ash residue so it's no longer capable of combustion or ignition, according to the City . The move will save Brookhaven virtually $500,000 over the next 4 years, Supervisor Mark Lesko said. "I advocate our waste product management team for doing such an excellent job in building more strategies for the city to save cash during these tricky business times," he added.

Leachate is liquid that moves thru or drains from a landfill.

The most typical source is rainwater filtering down thru the landfill. This liquid is treated in the same way to sewage, and then safely released into the environment. According to the city officers, the Brookhaven Dump produces between 18,000,000 tons and twenty-seven million tons of leachate a year on account of the standard operation of the rubbish heap and Covanta Hempstead has found it's of acceptable quality to "slake" ash during its resource recovery process. "The Brookhaven Dump serves as an example across the industry of how a waste product management facility can be run more effectively and with the smallest amount of result on the environment ".

 Councilman Tim Mazzei said. "We have the largest municipal landfill site on Long Island and it's important that we continue to lead the way."

The program also helps Convanta.

"The leachate will be utilized at our Hempstead energy-from-waste facility and consequently cut our annual usage of ground water by an equivalent amount," said Rick Sandner, Vice President Regional Business Manager of Covanta. "Good for the Town, good for us and good for the environment."

The Town of Brookhaven accepts post combustion ash, and other non-hazardous materials into its landfill from various companies and this year will receive over 217,000 tons of post combustion ash residue from Covanta Hempstead.

The revenue that the Town of Brookhaven will derive from the company for accepting ash in 2010 is expected to exceed $11.5 million, Town officials said.

View the original article here

Petition Pushes EPA to Move on Cement Kiln Dust Management - EP Magazine

Riverkeeper has filed a legal petition forcing the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to take action on a rule that sets the standards for how toxic cement kiln dust (CKD) is managed by cement producers around the country.

This byproduct of cement manufacturing is often dumped into unlined landfills and old quarries, causing toxic leachate to foul groundwater and surface water. The proposed rule was published in 1999, but due to unyielding pressure from the cement industry, has languished for nearly 11 years, according to Riverkeeper. As a result, no federal standards for CKD disposal exist today.

“In New York and around the country, these unlined landfills ooze toxic leachate and devastate the environment,” said Josh Verleun, Riverkeeper chief investigator and staff attorney. “Through our action, we are seeking to force the creation of federal standards for the disposal of CKD, a substance that when mixed with groundwater, can result in a heavy-metal laden runoff with pH levels comparable to household bleach.”

Riverkeeper is an environmental watchdog organization whose mission is to protect the ecological integrity of the Hudson River and its tributaries, and to safeguard the drinking water supply of New York City and the lower Hudson Valley.

Over the past few years, Riverkeeper has been involved in investigations of several cement plants that have been either been caught (or are suspected of) polluting the Hudson River and its tributaries with contaminated leachate from onsite landfills containing CKD. In 2007, Riverkeeper filed a Notice of Intent to Sue Lehigh Northeast Cement Company for illicit leachate discharges from its unlined CKD landfill. This action led to fines and an Order on Consent mandating cleanup from the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation.

The Lehigh landfill was constructed without a liner or leachate collection system and serves as an example of problem sites around the country that would be addressed through EPA action on Riverkeeper’s petition.

View the original article here

Phase II of landfill closure to begin - Crossville Chronicle

CROSSVILLE — Commissioners on the Environmental Committee authorized its engineer to proceed with the construction documents for the partial closure on the second half of the county's class one landfill.

Ronnie Reese, environmental engineer for Cumberland County's landfill, told commissioners serving on the Environmental Committee that phase 2 of the landfill closure for class one municipal waste and household garbage was almost full and it was time to proceed with closure preparations.

"You need to decide what you want to do with this, but I would recommend filling until the end of the month and compacting that down as much as possible and placing a temporary cap of one foot top cover to prevent so much water getting in creating as much leachate," Reese said.

Leachate is the byproduct or waste water that is drained from the bottom of the landfill. The liquid has to be taken to a treatment facility.

Once the landfill is closed, the county is scheduled to begin using a transfer station method through Cumberland Waste Disposal, a Waste Management company.

"Is the county ready to go to the transfer stations? I mean, when's the D-Day on that?" Jeff Brown, 8th District commissioner asked.

"I'm not sure," Reese said.

"The contracts and everything is in place on that. Basically, it's when we call them and we're ready and they'll start," Cumberland County Mayor Kenneth Carey said.

"You don't want to start a complete closure at this time in the year. It's up to you and you have to make the decision. But I'd recommend doing the temporary cover now and going ahead with the complete closure in spring," Reese said.

"If we do a temporary cover and wait till spring, will that affect the bidding?" 9th District Comissioner Carmin Lynch asked.

"Yes, it will. You're better off to wait on the bidding because of the plastic liner, it is based on oil prices and it can go up and down like a yo-yo. There's already a portion of it there ... You'd be better off to contract for a partial closure now with a temporary cap and then a permanent cap in the spring for the complete closure. I can have the paperwork and specifics ready to get to Nathan (Brock) and it should be ready to go out to bid in a few weeks," Reese said.

"Will we still have to deal with all the leachate?" 7th District Commissioner Mike Harvel asked.

"Yes, but it won't be anything like the amount we have had with the landfill open and running. I don't know a real figure for sure, though," Reese said.

Commissioner Lynch, who is not a member of the committee, but attended the meeting, reminded commissioners that phase one of the landfill closure was built into the budget, but phase two was not and the debt would have to be issued to have the figure and leachate would be a big factor.

Robert Safdie, 2nd District commissioner motioned to authorize Reese proceed with the documents to start with the partial closure on phase two with a temporary cap.

Terry Carter, 6th District commissioner, supported the motion and it was unanimously passed.

Reese updated commissioners on the status of the remainder of the class three-four landfill and said it could run until the summer of 2011. Reese said the area on top of that landfill was flat and could possibly be extended to go higher up with construction and demolition waste, but it would require a modification to the permit that would have to be submitted to the state.

"This would be considered a major modification if we wanted to extend it like that. You'd have to go through public meetings and a hearing process," Reese said.

He estimated it could extend the life of the class three-four landfill another four years.

"If you don't want to extend it, then we're looking at next summer for closure on that," Reese said.

Darrell Franklin of Faye Portables attended the meeting and addressed the committee stating they would be willing to transport up to 100 tons per day of ceramic tile to the class three-four landfill for a reduced rate.

The current rate is $30 per ton, but Faye requested a rate of $15 per ton since they would be bringing in such a large quantity on a daily basis.

"We'd be looking at around 100 tons per day. It could be more or less, but it's available now and it would be good for both of us. It could give you added revenue for your landfill costs," Darrell Franklin said.

He added it would be approximately 80 percent tile and 20 percent demolition combined.

"It would greatly accelerate the rate of our landfill closure, but it won't take up the volume as regular C&D waste," Mayor Carey said.

"Well, it would fill quicker and you've got to consider if we give these guys a reduction then our own people who elected us into these positions, our local contractors are going to want a discounted rate for bringing their stuff," said 7th District Commissioner Roy Turner.

"It wouldn't make any sense to do the discounted rate just to break even and fill the landfill up faster. It's something we've got to study," Brown said. "We'd need some kind of a contract to do this, too."

Commissioners said they would have to look at the proposal to consider and get some estimates from Reese on much it take in ceramic tile to fill the landfill and how much the extension would cost if they were to consider having it constructed.

"It's not something we can answer tonight. It's something we're going to have to look at and get back after we get some estimates," Brown said.

View the original article here

Potential for using constructed wetlands to treat landfill leachate: Literature review and pilot study design (Special report series)

This digital document is a journal article from Ecological Engineering, published by Elsevier in . The article is delivered in HTML format and is available in your Amazon.com Media Library immediately after purchase. You can view it with any web browser.

Description:
Four surface-flow mesocosm wetlands were operated at different hydraulic retention times during two periods to treat diluted woodwaste leachate that was acidic, of very high oxygen demand, and toxic. Temperature, dissolved oxygen, and redox potential decreased with increasing water depth. However, there was no significant vertical variation in microbial biomass. No significant development in biomass of planktonic microorganisms was found over 6 weeks of initial operation. It took <1-6 weeks for maturation of the biofilm on submerged plant surfaces and the sedimentary microbial community. Mass reduction efficiencies of chemical oxygen demand, and tannin and lignin increased significantly with hydraulic retention time when 10% leachate was fed with tap water. When a more recalcitrant influent was fed, there was a slight increase of reduction efficiency with increasing hydraulic retention time. Reduction rates increased linearly with mass loading rates up to 0.4kgm^-^3d^-^1 chemical oxygen demand and 0.13kgm^-^3d^-^1 tannin and lignin. Precipitation and evapotranspiration had profound impacts on the overall performance and its variability. Mass balance-based operating data of wetlands with a mature microbial community are required for proper performance assessment. formance assessment.

Price:

Click here to buy from Amazon

The Characteristics and impacts of landfill leachate

Disposing of solids waste to landfill is regarded as one of the most economical means of handling waste though landfills pose pollution threat to both ground and surface water resources. However, landfill liners and good landfill management practices may reduce the impact of water contamination by landfills. Chemical analysis of groundwater beneath and near two landfills from New Zealand and Lesotho (in Southern Africa) showed that there are higher concentrations of chemicals such as Chlorides, TDS and COD than average. The water was also found to contain higher amounts of heavy metals. High concentrations of chemical constituents, such as those found in leachate contaminated water may cause various health complications in humans if consumed. To minimize possible hazards due to landfill leachate, future landfills must be lined at the base and sides by a combination of clay, geosynthetic clay and high-density polyethylene liners.

Price: $114.00

Click here to buy from Amazon

Constructed Wetlands for the Treatment of Landfill Leachates

Constructed wetlands are proving to be the best natural treatment system for landfill leachates.Most of the contaminants in landfill leachates are degraded in treatment wetlands. Potential for long-term sustainability and significant cost savings are attractive features of this eco-technology.Documentation of the experience in this use of constructed wetlands has been limited. Constructed Wetlands for the Treatment of Landfill Leachates is the first compilation of the results of research from North America and Europe. Originally presented at an international symposium, this collection of papers offers the most recent research findings from the leading researchers in this new and innovative natural treatment system.Specific issues addressed in the text include:oleachate characteristics, and the potential for treatability by constructed wetlandsowetland treatment, processes and transformationouse of constructed wetlands in cold climatic conditionsoassessment of the tolerance of wetland plants to the toxicity of leachatesorole of plants in the treatments of leachatesointegrated wetland systemsoperformance of different wetland treatment systemsocost comparisons of wetland technology vs. traditional treatment technologiesThe potential for environmental contamination due to leachates from landfills is increasing, and there is an urgent need to find ways and means to treat leachates in a sustainable way Constructed Wetlands for the Treatment of Landfill Leachates will provide an invaluable source of information on the subject for scientists, engineers, practitioners, policy makers, and regulatory officials.

Price: $129.95

Click here to buy from Amazon

Avoiding Failure of Leachate Collection and Cap Drainage Systems (Pollution Technology Review No. 138)

A guide to the control of leachate, including failure mechanisms, design, construction, inspection, maintenance and repair.

Price: $139.95

Click here to buy from Amazon

Cranston tells Resource Recovery to pay its bills - Providence Journal

CRANSTON — The Rhode Island Resource Recovery Corporation has until Sept. 27 to settle a $2-million debt in back charges or the city will initiate legal action, members of the City Council’s public works committee said Thursday.

Council members say the owner and operator of the state Central Landfill in Johnston snubbed settlement attempts for months.

“They can’t continue to put their heads in the sand and act like we don’t exist,” Council President John E. Lanni Jr. said.

Friday, Michael J. OConnell, the corporation’s executive director, said Resource Recovery was actually waiting for city officials to contact them.

“Our predicament is that we have requested information from them, and we haven’t got anything back from them, which is why we can’t respond,” OConnell said.

On July 20, the city billed Resource Recovery for $2,096,598.31 in back charges, saying the corporation failed to treat its leachate or pay its share of expensive upgrades. The invoice includes $437,254.52 in operating and maintenance costs associated with the excess loading dating to 2005, and $1,659,343.78 for the corporation’s pro-rated share of the city’s costs of upgrading the plant based on a permit change that year. It does not include possible administrative costs.

City officials also say Resource Recovery allowed three businesses in its Johnston industrial park to illegally tie into Cranston’s sewer service. That violation carries penalties of $25,000 per day per business, city officials say.

City Solicitor Evan Kirshenbaum and Councilman Mario Aceto, the committee’s chairman, have said the city tried to negotiate a resolution for the past year, but agency officials stalled in scheduling another meeting. City officials later learned from a newspaper article that Resource Recovery was planning to build a sewer line to connect into a Narragansett Bay Commission sewage intake.

The Providence Journal filed an open records request on July 30 asking for copies of public documents, including the corporation’s annual budget, along with any supporting documentation and description of the corporation’s leachate pretreatment system or payment-in-lieu of pretreatment and any sewer agreement with the city to extend service to the corporation’s industrial park.

The deadline to respond was Sept. 14.

Friday, OConnell said the corporation’s lawyer was reviewing the documents to see which, if any, would be released “because this is a likely lawsuit in the near term.”

Also Thursday night, the council finance committee voted to unseal the minutes of several closed-door discussions on how much Johnson & Wales University is to pay the city in taxes for 12 lots, roughly 20 acres of waterfront land, on its Harborside Campus.

In 2005, the city rezoned the land and amended its Comprehensive Plan to allow the university to build 12 dormitories and a community building and management facility.

The campus, which includes 84 buildings on the Providence side, was built by a nonprofit agency, which leases the buildings to the university. That raised the question of whether the project was tax-exempt.

Rather than seek clarification, the university and the city reached a 20-year agreement that city officials say was never signed, under which the city was to get $95,000 annually for the first 10 years and $104,500 for the next 10 years.

The “memorandum of understanding” called for the city to collect most of that money from the state in the form of a payment in lieu of taxes and Johnson & Wales to cover any difference between the state compensation and the agreed-upon figure. If the property was later deemed to be taxable, the university agreed to pay the appropriate tax.

This year, Finance Director Robert F. Strom said, Cranston received $4.2 million in PILOT money from the state, which includes payment for the 12 university parcels and 20 state lots. Strom estimated the state’s payment for Johnson & Wales was $150,000 to $160,000.

The university land, Strom said, is currently assessed at $4.8 million, and the buildings at $21 million.

marmenta@projo.com

View the original article here

Fulton continues to work on landfill violations - Fulton Sun

He said the city also has completed supplemental environmental performance projects, which he described as "essentially an additional penalty designed to improve the situation, including a methane capture system. Slivka also addressed a concern from Ready regarding what happens when the landfill closes in May 2011.

"We will have a financial assurance instrument in place," he said.

"Essentially saying 'Here's this money to fix violation issues if it happens."

Fulton Director of Administration Bill Johnson said the city actually has been subject to more inspections since announcing its intention to close the landfill.

"DNR has an interest in ensuring we close it properly," Johnson said.

Regarding odor issues, Slivka said the Department of Natural Resources has been out to test air quality on a number of occasions -- as recently as the week of Sept. 6 -- and never found a problem.

"On odor violations, our litmus test is 7 to 1 dissolution," Slivka said. "We've gone out there a number of times and it's never been higher than 2 to 1."

Johnson addressed the most recent violations for exposed litter.

"This is not an excuse, but we are approaching our closure date, and there was an attempt to spread trash thinner over a wider area to even out the land," Johnson said, noting that process also included having to haul in more dirt. "The idea sounded good to use the trash to fill in, but it just didn't work out the way we thought.

"We did it, it was wrong, and we won't be doing it anymore."

As for methane levels, he said one supplemental environmental performance project currently in the works involves putting in a 10,000 gallon tank to pump water that flows down into the methane collection wells out of the landfill.

"This will allow our methane extraction wells to function better," Johnson said. "Hopefully by drawing the methane down into the wells it will stop it from migrating."

Another just-completed project is a storm water sediment pond "that will give sediment in the storm water time to settle out before water leaves the site."

Although Slivka said he could not give a number regarding how much the city has been fined for these violations, he did say DNR recently sent an agreement in principal regarding settlement.

"We're certainly sympathetic to Mrs. Ready, but we feel like we have been out there and we have been on the city's back," Slivka said.

Johnson acknowledged the city has received that agreement, noting DNR is proposing a fine of $10,000 as well as an additional $5,403 to pay for investigative costs.

Johnson said he is scheduled to meet with Department of Natural Resources officials later this week, and noted the agreement in principle will be presented to the Fulton City Council at its Sept. 28 meeting.

View the original article here

Dumping water into bay could be Mercury clean-up solution - UpperMichigansSource.com

CMS would filter the water to remove 90 percent of mercury, but some ask if that's enough

PETOSKEY, MI -- CMS Land Company believes they've found a local solution to the Leachate problem at Bay Harbor and East Park, but it's being met with some serious concern.

What to do with the contaminated water from the former Penn-Dixie Cement Plant near Petoskey?

That has been the question, and for four years, the water has been shipped to a deep-well injection site.

But CMS Land Company says something else needs to be done, and they believe they've found the solution.

But this solution could mean small quantities of Mercury being diluted into the Great Lakes.

For five years it has worked like this...collect the run-off water that contains mercury from the contaminated land underneath Bay Harbor and East Park, neutralize it in this building, and then ship the result, an average of 150-thousand gallons per day, to a deep-injection well-site more than 50 miles away to Johannesburg.  C-M-S Land Company has been in charge, and now, they say it's their belief they've found a better *local solution to take care of the local problem.

"We're proposing to build a $4 million state-of-the-art facility to treat the water that we collect here using the best available technology and then release that water back to Lake Michigan," said CMS Land Company Area Manager Tim Petrosky.

The main contaminant of concern is Mercury.  The facility will remove 90 percent or more from the water.  That water would then be mixed with clean water to meet environmental criteria before going back in the lake.

"The requirements are very, very stringent, in fact, the release criteria for mercury to the lake is 1.3 parts per trillion," said Petrosky.

Here's an analogy of the parts per trillion guideline.  It'd be like placing one drop of contaminated liquid in all of the water of 20 Olympic-sized swimming pools combined.

But Doctor Grenetta Thomassey of the Tip of the Mitt Watershed Council says this amount *may seem benign...it could be detrimental, which is why the council doesn't support this solution.

“You mix it with water, and let it go into Little Traverse Bay, and then you come back and you mix it with water, and let it go into Little Traverse Bay, and basically what you got is that exact same amount of mercury all ending up in Little Traverse Bay, so we're not in favor of that, no," said Thomassey.

CMS has submitted an application to the Department of Natural Resources and Environment. 

“We look really carefully at mercury because it is one of the few contaminants that is known as a bio-cumulative compound, meaning that it builds up in the environment over a period of time, so we look at that very carefully," said Bob Wagner, the Lake Huron Regional Director of the DNRE.

“We think it's the best solution to environmental, safety, and economic perspective," said Petrosky.

“This is a bad deal.  So we are not interested in anything going into Little Traverse Bay if it can be prevented," said Thomassee.

The DNRE will review the application and if the proposed treatment meets the guidelines, they'll issue a draft permit sometime in October or November.  After that, they'll seek public comment.

View the original article here

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

Landfills pose a health risk - Malaysia Star

MOST people object to having a landfill near their houses. We generate rubbish but once it enters the dustbins or recycling bin, we want nothing more to do with it.

The main reason is fear of possible health problems arising from contact with pollutants escaping from waste management sites, but the problem is set to grow over the next decade due to our throwaway lifestyle.

Each year, we produce more than nine million tons of household waste, but only recycle 3% of it. There is no positive sign that waste generation is decreasing. As a result, a large number of former mines and quarries have been lined with water-proof material and filled with rubbish. As suburbia spreads and brown field sites are developed, more Malaysian families than ever before are living close to landfill sites.

In landfill sites, bacteria break down food and other organic materials, producing potentially pollution liquids and gases such as ammonia, acids and heavy metals, mixed into a nasty cocktail called leachate.

All these contaminants are cause for concern if they end up in natural

water-courser and drinking water supplies. Many such cases have been recorded lately in Malaysia.

Leachate can destroy the well balanced eco-system and is very harmful to human. It is clear that poorly managed landfill will lead to serious environmental problem such as the recent incidence of raw water pollution caused by leachate seepage from a landfill.

Hence, leachate management becomes an important issue in deciding which strategy to apply in any planning process involving the closure of dumps and siting and development of landfills. The main objective of any leachate management will be to ensure that landfill waste does not impose any unacceptable short term or long term risks to the environment or to public health.

ETHAYA RAJAN MOKANATAS,

Kuala Lumpur.

View the original article here

Largest Membrane Leachate Plant Handover - Water and Wastewater

Enschede, The Netherlands -- Two years ago, ISTAÇ (Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality Environmental Protection and Waste Materials Valuation Industry) and Norit X-Flow embarked on one of the most remarkable wastewater treatment projects of its time; the treatment of leachate from the Istanbul landfill in Odayeri and Kömürcüoda. The installation became the largest membrane leachate plant in the world and involves the most advanced water treatment technology available.

The ISTAÇ Leachate Treatment project represents one of the most challenging filtration projects globally, based upon its size, environmental conditions , and continuous growth rates. The solution had to be robust, future proof and deliver consistently the highest effluent quality levels to ensure the environmental integrity of the region. says Jürgen von Hollen, Managing Director of Norit X-Flow.

After approximately two years of operation and treating up to 3500 m3 of landfill water percolate on a daily basis the conclusion is that the plant meets its specifications and contractual requirements for discharge of the treated effluent. ISTAÇ and Norit X-Flow celebrated the official handover and the successful partnership on August 17, 2010.

Water percolating through landfills for solid waste results in leachate, which may contain undesirable or toxic chemicals. The ISTAÇ landfill is constructed to prevent leachate contamination of groundwater or surface waters. The landfill percolate containing high amounts of COD, BOD, TSS and Nitrogen is collected and treated by Norit's membrane bioreactor (MBR) technology which makes it possible to discharge this water directly into the Black Sea, a process that is in line with both current and future drainage standards.

Beside its state of the art MBR technology, the wastewater treatment plants in Istanbul uses a combination of two advanced Norit X-Flow technologies: a biological process applied in conjunction with ultrafiltration followed by nanofiltration.

The collected leachate is first subjected to primary clarification and afterwards transferred to a bioreactor unit for biological treatment. In the bioreactor COD, BOD and Nitrogen compounds are eliminated. Subsequently the Norit X-Flow Crossflow membrane system, placed outside of the bioreactor, separates sludge, solid waste on suspension and some amount of COD. Lastly, the Norit NF installation eliminates the remaining COD, organic micro polluters, heavy metals and other compounds (humic acids, color) to a water quality conform current and future discharge standards.

Mr. Akguel, Managing Director of ISTAÇ adds ?The success of the project beyond the technological solution can be attributed to the project partnership approach adopted by both ISTAÇ and Norit X-Flow both at the operational level, but equally important at the management level to ensure that full commitment and prioritization was given to this project. Our continuous partnership will ensure that this installation is the benchmark for landfill leachate plants for years to come.?

Source: http://www.x-flow.com/

View the original article here

Leachate from disused site costs ratepayers New Zealand - Northern Advocate

Give us your thoughts on this story.

A Hakaru resident is angry that leachate from a disused landfill is costing Kaipara ratepayers thousands of dollars a year to have it collected and transported from the site.

Derek Mason said the leachate volumes have doubled since the site ceased operating as a landfill and blames poor construction advice, which included no sidewall liners, as a reason for the ongoing problems.

Mr Mason said the Hakaru landfill site, between Mangawhai and Kaiwaka, has been controversial since it was opened in 1995 and was not wanted by the community who had always preferred a transfer station.

The landfill served the Kaiwaka, Mangawhai and Maungaturoto area east of Doctors Hill Rd. Mr Mason said the Kaipara District Council estimated refuse volumes to the landfill of 20,000cu m yearly made a transfer station an unviable option but these volumes had not eventuated.

The council walked away from a proposed site at Franklin Rd, Paparoa, after it realised it was going to be too costly, he said.

Mr Mason, who is a member of the Hakaru Landfill Committee, claimed it cost ratepayers $127,000 per annum to have the leachate carted off site, which was "wasteful spending".

The total volume of refuse collected over the 10 years the site had operated was only 25,000cu m, he said.

"The whole operation has been flawed from the beginning," Mr Mason said.

He estimated the landfill had cost ratepayers $2 million to subsidise its operation.

The committee's view was that the quarry face, where the landfill is sited, would have to be dug out to reduce leachate.

Mr Mason said this would remove about 25 per cent of the compacted landfill. Rather than a costly onsite treatment system, it would be more cost effective to dig out the entire landfill.

Submissions on the matter were heard during the 2010-11 annual plan process.

Council spokeswoman Claire Lichtwark-McInnes said the council agreed there was a problem with the Hakaru landfill and the ongoing costs to remove leachate. In 2007, the council had opted to close the landfill and operate a transfer station at the site.

Mrs Lichtwark-McInnes said the leachate removal did come at a cost to the whole district and was funded from the general rate. Closed landfills throughout the district all had ongoing costs which were covered district-wide, she said. At edition time, she was unable to confirm the costs.

A report to council on the landfill said "the submitters' concerns were valid and the matter needed to be addressed".

Mrs Lichtwark-McInnes said the council had agreed to allocate $25,000 to look at options for the future management of the Hakaru landfill.

Investigations would be completed this year. Options include the removal of all waste, identifying the waste sources to the landfill, drainage of the base around the walls and the building of an onsite leachate treatment system.

The committee regards the treatment system too expensive and considers the removal of all compacted refuse the best option.

View the original article here