Sanitary Landfill and Leachate

I was blogging recently about sanitary landfill leachate when from a reader's query it became clear that they were not clear about what a sanitary landfill comprises. In this article I set out to put that right.

Migration Hazards at a Sanitary Landfill (Image: Masterplan
for the Aftercare of Abandoned Landfills, Van Vossen, Gravesteijn,
Kasma  and Vos; proceedings Sardinia 95, 5th Sardinia Landfill
Symposium Cagliari, Italy)

The standard definition of a Class III or "Sanitary Landfill" originates in North America and the term has spread around the world from that source. It is, as defined in the US, a landfill that accepts household garbage and is normally lined below to reduce the escape of leachate to an environmentally acceptable rate, operated to minimize leachate generation and keep the waste as dry as possible, and capped as each area of the landfill is completed - again to keep leachate to a minimum but also to allow efficient collection of the landfill gas the landfill produces. The best sanitary landfills also have a recycling center at the site or the waste passes through a recycling center before it reaches the sanitary landfill. The recycling center these days often includes processing which separate waste types and process the waste, and comprehensive centers where waste is reduced, recycled and reused are called MRFs, and some are also known as MBT Plants.

The modern sanitary landfill is lined in the US with multiple layers to protect soils and the water bearing aquifers underneath. The in the US liner is composed of multiple natural layers and an impenetrable plastic (HDPE) or similar material. The purpose of the liner is to hold the waste for as long as possible collect all the "garbage polluted rainwater" (known as leachate) so that it can be extracted and treated. In Europe and worldwide the plastic lining is usually a single layer of thicker material than is usual in the US.

The new environmental centers being built for many sanitary landfills offer the opportunity for the community to become a more sustainable community. It will not only enhance the area's management of its waste but will also provide state-of-the-art and innovative recycling and in many cases the production of renewable energy.

Sanitary Landfills in More Detail

In short sanitary landfill is simply a general description of a type of landfill, it is the commonly accepted method of controlled disposal of municipal solid waste (refuse) on land in most countries. The method was first used in England from 1912 (where it has was then called controlled tipping, and is now called controlled landfilling). Waste is deposited in thin layers (up to 1 metre, or 3 feet deep) and within hours compacted by heavy compaction machinery (known as "compactors" these are similar to bulldozers but instead of having tracks have steel cutting wheels to break up the waste). Several layers of waste are placed and compacted on top of each other over a period of a day to several days, to form a refuse cell (up to 3 metres, or 10 feet, thick).

At the end of each day the compacted refuse cell is covered with a layer of soil material (or similar) to prevent odor, keep rats out of the waste, and prevent windblown litter from being blown of the site. All modern landfill site locations are carefully selected and prepared before the waste is placed. They are sealed with impermeable synthetic bottom liners to prevent pollution of groundwater from leachate or other environmental problems.

When the landfill is completed, it is capped with a layer of low permeability material such as a clay, or a synthetic liner, in order to prevent as much water as possible from entering. A final topsoil cover is placed, compacted, and landscaped, with various forms of vegetation being planted to reclaim the surface for the planner after-use.

Traditional landfills, before sanitary landfills were introduced were referred to as “open” or “polluting” dumps, simply containing un-engineered sites with waste under the ground. Such sites potentially allow the waste by-product called leachate to enter and contaminate groundwater and other water sources. They also attract rodents, insects and other disease-carrying vermin. Other negative effects of open dumps include emission of air pollution, odors and the creation of potential fire hazards. In a sanitary landfill these risks are partly eliminated, or at least deferred thanks in part to protective liners and monitoring systems that ensure there is no harm done to the environment, for just as long as the leachate is removed and treated.

What is a Leachate Attenuation Zone?

A leachate attenuation zone is basically a buffer zone around a land fill that protects against contamination of groundwater by its pollution from harmful or dangerous wastes. Tons of older landfills were established prior to stricter laws were carried out have been described as having "leachate attenuation zones".

In the UK these sorts of landfills which were most typical before about 1990, were blamed for leachate escapes into groundwater made use of for consuming water abstraction, and came to be called not the safe "dilute, [attenuate] and disperse" landfills their designers meant, but just merely "dilute and pollute" landfills! Sadly, there was much truth in such a description, in numerous cases.

Leachate attenuation zones are, in additional words, locations of the ground around and below those land fills which don't have low leaks in the structure linings, in which leachate seeps out and, biological action, in exactly what are called the "unsaturated" or "aerated / aerobic" zone outside the landfill in permeable ground, lowers the polluting capacity of the leachate by actually treating it.

It the right types of geology with the correct amount of leaks in the structure and ground types these attenuation zones could be very effective and supplied free of charge leachate treat. Unfortunately, unless these leachate attenuation zones are effectively designed by engineers, hydrologists, and hydro-geological researchers, they rarely work well when they happen by opportunity. Nonetheless, they can be created into brand-new unlined landfills if the ground around the land fills and water levels in the ground and flux of circulation through the ground is appropriate. The path size within the attenuation medium and rate of circulation is additionally essential.

Landfills are the most substantially utilized technique for the disposal of solid waste around the world. When water from rainstorms or melting snow percolates with the decaying natural and inorganic waste of these landfills, it comes to be polluted. All land fills produce this kind of contamination, additionally leachate is still produced from landfills that have actually been closed and deserted for years.

Normally, one volume of landfill waste produces between 50 and 100 gallons of a very tainted wastewater called leachate.

Land fills are different from additional groundwater contamination sources due to the fact that after wastes are buried, a series of physical, chemical and biological feedbacks happen that intensify the toxic concentration of the waste that runs off as leachate. In unheard of circumstances, entire new mixes are produced.

The usual leachate from a landfill has high concentrations of ammoniacal nitrogen and sensibly high recalcitrant combinations, that could sometimes additionally include halogenated hydrocarbons such as carbon tetrachloride and methylene chloride, and intricate polymers, plus heavy metals that are not degradable.

Of these toxic contaminants, the conversion of the natural nitrogen in living cells, into ammoniacal nitrogen produces what is not just a long-lived hazardous liquid, but also a liquid which is additionally highly damaging to most aquatic species.

To minimize the problem developed by the development of a leachate attenuation zone, or a plume of contamination in the ground, government organizations might purchase residential property nearby to a landfill to establish a leachate attenuation zone. This is a way of ensuring that no wells or boreholes are built within the zone, which if they were present would certainly deliver contaminated and undrinkable water.

Seymour Landfill Operator Applauded for Applying for Permission to Put Slopes on Plateau

The top of every landfill should be rounded, and certainly never a flat plateau, and if your landfill has a flat plateau you should go right now to the regulators and the planners and ask for more capacity to be allowed to ask for a rounded contour with surface slopes initially at no shallower than 1 in 20, whcih after settlement will end up probably at only 1 in 20 which is only just enough to stop sighnificant ponding. In essence you need the surface water from a landfill cap to flo off it quickly. UK research in the 1990s showed this need for a good shedding slope to the top of a landfill to reduce leachate production, to be a big factor in all cases studied.




Here is an extract from the original article:

TRENT HILLS -- The key to a landfill achieving its full potential is that it be well-rounded. Northumberland County will be making that argument when it applies to the Ministry of the Environment to increase the capacity of the Seymour landfill by 39,000 cubic metres so the mound atop the waste disposal site will be rounded.

The landfill's approved final contours is for a plateau on top which will lead to increased infiltration of precipitation into the landfill and cause "higher than necessary leachate generation rates," manager of planning and technical support Adam McCue said in a report to County council April 18.

If the ministry agrees to the request for additional waste material and cover soil, Seymour Landfill's operating life would be extended by up to two years, he said.

With its capacity currently valued at $95 per tonne, the landfill would produce an additional $1.85 million in revenue during that time, he added.

Mo Pannu, director of transportation and waste management, said the site's capacity is expected to run out by the end of this year or early in 2013.

He said it will take four to five months for the application to be processed.

The application to the ministry will cost $22,700. The County also approved an expenditure of $42,500 to develop detailed design, operations and closure plan in support of the request. Both expenses will be funded from savings in this year's transportation and waste management department budgets.

View the original article here

General Electric Company and SI Group Inc. Awarded EPA Superfund Site Leachate Contract

There have been fewer dramatic US nationally funded clean-up up projects in recent years, since more attention has been given to regulating landfills and the operators have been made to line them and show that proper care is being taken to protect the environment from the damage that leachate escape can cause. The following article shows a case where action is being taken to protect water supplies:

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recently announced that it has entered into an agreement with the General Electric Company and SI Group, Inc. (formerly Schenectady Chemical) to collect and properly dispose of contaminated ground water and liquid leaching from the Dewey Loeffel landfill that is threatening several nearby drinking water wells. The liquid seeping from the landfill, called leachate, and the ground water are contaminated with volatile organic compounds, which can cause cancer in people. The extent and nature of potential health effects depend on many factors, including the level and how long people are exposed to the contaminants.

The EPA is currently collecting the contaminated liquid waste and sending it off-site for disposal. Under the agreement, General Electric and SI will take on the collection and removal of the waste and the construction of a treatment plant adjacent to the landfill, all with EPA oversight. The waste will continue to be sent off-site until the construction of the treatment plant is completed. Treated water from the new system will be discharged to surface water only after the EPA verifies that sampling data shows that the treatment system is working effectively and is capable of meeting stringent state discharge limits. GE and SI Group have agreed to reimburse EPA for certain costs, including an upfront payment of $800,000.

“The EPA has determined that treating the contaminated ground water and liquid at the site is an effective way to protect people’s drinking water wells while the EPA investigation of the site continues,” said Judith A. Enck, EPA Regional Administrator. “The treatment system that will be constructed near the landfill will alleviate the impacts of the hundreds of truck trips needed to dispose of the waste off-site.”

The treatment system to be constructed will address potential threats from the contaminated ground water and eachate and community concerns about trucking the contaminated liquid off-site. A comprehensive long-term study is underway, which will identify permanent cleanup options, called remedial actions, for the contaminated ground water, surface water and sediment associated with the site. The permanent cleanup plan may include changes to the leachate collection collection, ground water extraction and treatment systems.

The Dewey Loeffel Landfill site is located in southern Rensselaer County, approximately four miles northeast of the village of Nassau. From 1952 until 1968, the site was used for the disposal of an estimated 46,000 tons of waste materials generated by several Capital District companies. The waste included industrial solvents, waste oils, polychlorinated biphenyls, scrap materials, sludge and solids. Volatile organic compounds and other hazardous substances have seeped out of the landfill and contaminated the ground water. PCBs have also moved downstream, causing contamination of sediment and several species of fish in and near Nassau Lake.

From 1980 until the site was added to the federal Superfund list in May 2011, numerous investigations and cleanup actions were performed at the site under the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation’s Superfund program. In the fall 2011, the EPA took responsibility for operating ground water and leachate collection collection systems that had been installed by the state.

View the original article here

Landfill woes far from over - Times Daily

The importance of avoiding landfill leachate escapes to landfill operators is once again made clear in this article which we found recently, where the problem is all about the release of leachate  into the nearby creek. It shows, yet again, how important it is to ensure that leachate is managed carefully. Which means that the city’s municipal solid waste landfill may be closed to new waste tipping, but it’s far from being off the local radar screen.

Here is an extract from the article:

The Florence City Council could vote tonight to pay its engineering consultant $21,130 to investigate the source of a leachate escape in February that ultimately led to the state issuing a notice of violation.

The contract with Highland Technical Services would also authorize the company to take steps to recover leachate — water polluted with garbage — from the cell from which it originally escaped. If that option is chosen, the cost will increase to $55,640.

The council voted recently to close the landfill to municipal solid waste, leaving the remaining space for construction and demolition debris. The landfill was running out space, and the council deadlocked for months on whether to open a final cell or close the landfill and hire a contractor to haul trash out of state. The latter option was chosen as a temporary emergency measure in December because the current cell filled in early January.

In March, the council voted to extend its contract with Waste Connections, which is operating a transfer station for the city.

The notice of violation from the Alabama Department of Environmental Management cited the release of leachate into nearby Cypress Creek during a rain event. The violation is considered serious, and the notice stated a monetary fine could be imposed.

The council’s 3-3 deadlock was broken when Councilman Sam Pendleton and Council President James Barnhart voted to extend the contract with Waste Connections. Pendleton said the violation convinced him the landfill has problems. Barnhart, who had been concerned with costs, said Waste Connections’ guarantee of a long-term steady price helped sway his decision.

View the original article here

LETTER: Landfill leachate safeguards needed in any sewer deals - MPNnow.com (blog)

Here is an open letter from a resident who is appears to be declaring that leachate from a municipal waste landfill which the Waste Water Treatment Plant operator is presumably happy to accept, which must surely mean that there is sufficient treatment capacity at the Waste Water Treatment Plant to treat it, should not be sent there.

(The video below is for your general information and not associated with this article.)

This seems quite remarkable when around the worl the majority of landfill leachate is treated at sewage works, and for example the World Bank often prefers that it be treated finally at a Waste Water Treatment Plant, that this objection should be being made. Of course, the leachate might contain toxic substances, apart from the usual high strength organic contamination which is always present in landfill leachate. It also might well contain dissolved methane which might make it an explosion risk to discharge into the sewer, and need methane stripping before it is discharges, or, it might actually be more cost effectively provided with initial leachate treatment plant at the landfill site, by installation of a nitrification treatment plant, of which i have designed and supervisied construction of many.

However, just to say this is horrible suff this landfill leachate and must not go to the sewer  or the Waste Water Treatment Plant by tankers, is likely to place a high and unnecessary burden of cost on the community, for little environmental benefit, if any. You can read the opern letter below. Please also visit the original blog article:

Dear Officials (town and city of Geneva):

The residents of the Town and City of Geneva and the Town of Seneca are bearing most of the burden of the off-site environmental problems coming from the Ontario County landfill.  These residents are becoming more cynical about the ability and the willingness of some local officials to stand up and represent their constituents, as opposed to the interests of Casella Waste. Because of that, it seems like a good time to state an important concern about pending sewer negotiations.

Any final agreement must contain safeguards against Casella ever being able to transport leachate from the landfill through any jointly owned/operated sewer line to the Geneva Waste Water Treatment Plant, which discharges into Seneca Lake. Although this battle was fought months ago, that was not a final victory for Seneca Lake and those who drink its water, since leachate is still being trucked to the waste water treatment plant. The appetite of some local officials for leachat dollars apparently is never satisfied. City Council’s courageous decision against a direct pipeline from the dump to the treatment plant must be confirmed for the future in any city-town agreement about sewers.

In keeping with this decision and the concerns of residents, it is essential that any sewer agreements between the Town of Geneva and the Town of Seneca, and between the City of Geneva and the Town of Geneva include specific language preventing Casella or any future operator of the landfill from transporting leachate through city and town sewer lines.

SAM C. BONNEY
Geneva

View the original article here

Fears of leakage from rotting pile - Nelson Mail

There is no doubt that leachate can be very strog and cause a risk of surface water pollution, fish kils, etc. even where composting is taking place, and controls on where such compost piles are located may be needed. Here is a case where this has been seen as being vitally important.

Please vist the original website by clicking the link at the bottom of the article:

HELEN MURDOCH: A breach in a clay bund wall surrounding an illegal pile of rotting chicken and bark near the Motueka River has raised questions about the waste leaking into groundwater.

The Nelson Mail returned to the site on Thursday and found an overgrown drain from the compost site used by Birdhurst Ltd led directly to a nearby well liner sunk into the ground.

On Tuesday the Tasman District Council's environmental information manager Rob Smith had said that the illegal pile of rotting layer hens and bark would be allowed to remain at the site for the next month until the compost process was complete because moving the heaps before the process was complete would create too much smell.

At the time Mr Smith said the piles were in a compacted clay pit and there was no chance of contamination entering the groundwater – which ran between 2.5 to 3.5 metres below the surface – or reaching the Motueka River, some 200m away.

The situation came to public attention late last month when the Mail was called to the site off the end of Parker St because of concerns over the smell from the estimated 300 cubic metres of rotting chickens and bark.

The company was then fined $750 for breaching an abatement order issued by the council last year requiring Birdhurst to halt the operation.

Mr Smith said on Thursday staff were aware of the slot in the bund. It was to be blocked up on Thursday evening and more bark added to the pile of rotting chickens to reduce the smell.

"We believe that it was part of the previous consent requirement to manage the leachate. The previous consent had leachate management provisions in it. The composting material is isolated from the slot by clean bark and shell material.

"While I do not believe that there is any need to worry about any potential discharge to groundwater we will sample the groundwater next week to put the public's mind at rest."

Mr Smith said staff were following up on the issue of the unconsented compost operation occurring on the site that breaches the volume and odour regulations. 

View the original article here

Ohio EPA Acts on Discoversy Thet Landfill Leachate Could Pose A Threat to Public Health

The phrasing of this article is quite surprising. Elsewhere it has long been recognised that leachate can, if it gets into water supplies, be a major hazard to human health. In any landfill in other than a desert environment there is always enough leachate to jeopardise aquifers and watercourses if these are present in the local geology, and once in an aquifer the leachate may then migrate to be drawn into public water supply wells.

(Please note that the video below is included to point out the hazardous nature of leachate, and is not connected with the article.)

Throughout the EU this has been recognised for nearly 30 years now, since the Council passed a law (Directive) on all EU nations that as a matter of principle makes it illegal to pollute any uderground water, whether used for public extraction wells or not. The journalist who wrote this article is clearly not aware of these facts, howecer, it is good that the dangers of leachate to public health are being treated seriously in Ohio, and the authorities are acting on behalf of the people to ensure they are kept safe. Please read the original article, not just our excerpt below, but follwing the link at the bottom:

The Ohio Environmental Protection Agency proposed rule changes for construction and demolition debris landfills, which could mean more protection for Ohio's groundwater but higher operating costs for some landfills in the Mahoning Valley.

According to officials at the Ohio EPA, acting on a request by Ohio legislators, the agency conducted a leachate study and determined that leachate from Ohio CDD landfills could pose a threat to public health and the environment if it were to be released to groundwater or surface water.

''What we've done is added some provisions for making sure that doesn't happen,'' said Linda Fee Oros, spokeswoman with the Ohio EPA.

If adopted, those new restrictions could apply to two licensed CDD landfills in Trumbull County, Total Waste Logistics LAS LLC in Girard and the Lafarge-owned Lordstown Construction Recovery in Lordstown.

A CDD landfill differs from other types of landfills, including municipal landfills, in that it can only take materials from buildings, said Linda Fee Oros, spokeswoman with the Ohio EPA.

But Tim Page, general manager of Lordstown Construction Recovery, said he does not believe increased regulations on landfill leachate will not hinder operations there.

''Our leachate is not circulated. It's all treated and hooked up to the sewers and sent through the sewers,'' he said.

Page said his company is in discussions with the Ohio EPA regarding the proposed changes, but that they are very early in the process and that nothing has been decided.

Another area being discussed is in the increase in financial assurance required to be paid when licenses are issued each year.

''What they are asking for is more dollars per acre to be spent because the cost of closure has increased over the past few years,'' Page said. ''The materials you bring on site, the fuels and machinery, has gone up. So, there's definitely a need for an increase there of some sort.''

Not unlike other businesses, these types of landfills can be affected by the economy, which could cause them to close. If the business is unable to pay to properly close, the responsibility is then burdened on the state.

''You may have hard financial times and need to close. If the business doesn't generate enough money to pay for those costs, that would be a financial impact,'' Page said.

CDD landfills can only accept debris from construction and demolition activities; packaging resulting from the use of construction materials where the packaging is incidental to the load; tree stumps, trunks and branches exceeding 4 inches in diameter where the branches are clean of leaves and small branches; and asbestos-containing materials as long as a NESHAP air permit has been granted.

A CDD landfill is required to keep records of accepted and rejected waste loads, activities and the working face, preventing fires, proper management of surface water and leachate and prevention of nuisances or health hazards.

They are also required to monitor ground water if the facility is located near wells or an aquifer.

The process to have the proposed changes becoming rules is still in its early stages and the Ohio EPA is working to fine tune their proposals.

''At this point, we are looking at the comments we received and are working to incorporate those into our rules if changes are needed,'' Oros said.

A hearing will be held with Ohio's Joint Committee on Agency Rule Review regarding the possible rule changes. No date has yet been set for the hearing.

View the original article here

Leachate Collection and Treatment Facility Gets City Landfill Site and Student Thesis

Locals will be pleased abut new invetsment in environmental protection measures at the Merrick landfill site, as in the quotation which follows:

NORTH BAY, US - Engineering plans for a leachate collection and treatment facility at the city's Merrick landfill are ready to be drafted after council approved a $1.7 million expenditure during its March 5 meeting.

"Once completed, these plans will be presented to the Ministry of Environment for comment. We expect that to be completed by the end of the summer and hope to be able to tender out the construction of the project by late fall," said North Bay's manager of environmental services John Severino.

It is expected the leachate treatment facility will be operational by the spring of 2014.

The leachate treatment system has been designed by Conestoga Rovers and Associates, with input from Queen's University students who have been actively studying the city's landfill site and estimating future waste management needs.

"We actually have students at Queen's doing their thesis on our site," said City engineer Alan Korell, "and the National Research Council has put money in as well."

Total costs of this project have been budgeted at $5 million, money well spent according to Korell. He says the landfill site, "is the city's biggest opportunity to make a positive impact on the environment."

Severino says the system the city has chosen allows for the treatment of the liquid seepage so it can be directly returned to the environment. "It is also a flexible system in order to address any future concerns and is part of the whole Green Plan for the city."

The Merrick landfill, opened in 1994 with a footprint of 40.5 acres and has a life expectancy of 20 more years. Divided into 10 cells, "the first cells were naturally attenuated," said Severino, "where the leachate was allowed to run into the ground and be naturally treated. When we opened cell five, we put down a clay liner to collect the leachate, and have done the same with cell six, recently opened."

The treatment project is a complement to the methane collection system already part of the landfill operations.

"Currently we are collecting and flaring the methane gas. This system has only a one-twentieth impact on the environment compared to the natural process," said Severino. "Once the cogeneration plant is operational, the methane will not only produce energy for the area but will also be used to heat and help facilitate the leachate treatment system."

North Bay's energy from gas project, is the first to receive approval under the province's new Green Energy Act and is targeted to start production the end of June. The cost of this initiative was also $5 million.

"At peak capacity the plant should generate 1.6 megawatts of electricity," said Korell. "Enough to supply many of the homes in the area and stabilize that end of the city. It's about the equivalent of 1,300 homes."

The cogeneration plant will offset about 45,000 tons of carbon dioxide annually.

North Bay Hydro received approval for the renewable energy project in June 2011.

"Our philosophy, when it comes to the landfill site, is to limit what's going in there, and to optimize what's going on," Korell said.

Korell and Severino are excited about the city's approach to waste management, and are already eyeing starting the expansion planning process in about 10 years in order to have everything in place at the end of the current certification period. They both feel the city is, "ahead of the game in Northern Ontario," and they want to see it stay in the environmental lead.

"We are already diverting as much as 40 per cent of our waste, through recycling," said Korell, " and we're working to make the current landfill site last as long as possible.

"We're also fortunate that the city owns lots of land where the site is now, so we'll be able to expand, rather than have to look for a new location."

As the first such site approved to produce biogas, "we've sort of been the provincial guinea pig," said Severino. "MOE has been using us as a demonstration site and bringing people to show them what a well managed landfill is like."

Mayor Al McDonald says the landfill site initiatives are part of council's commitment to the environment and to future generations.

"These projects see over $10 million invested at the Merrick landfill site," he said, " to ensure the City's future needs are satisfied in an environmentally responsible way."

View the original article here

New EPA Leachate Monitoring Rules Affect Local Landfills

New landfill rules will mean increased costs for old landfills in the US County, and include, five key areas, for a post-closure care period, post-closure care financial assurance, more post-closure care period imonitoring if there are judged to be health or environmental effects, and a procedure to adjust final closure financial assurance.

The full details are given from the Zanesville Post article which descrobes them, below. Please visit the original site:

ZANESVILLE -- The Ohio Environmental Protection Agency has proposed new rules that would require the state's licensed construction and demolition debris landfills to regularly test groundwater for an expanded number of contaminants.

Two of the state's 55 licensed landfills which would be subject to the new rules are local -- Sidwell Materials' site off of Limestone Valley Road in Newton Township and the County Road 286 landfill in Coshocton County.

Sidwell Materials Asbestos Hazard Evaluation Specialist Drake Prouty said the company will abide by whatever rules and regulations ultimately are set forth by the agency.

He said that EPA representatives visit the landfill at 4620 Limestone Valley Road quarterly and for unannounced spot testing of groundwater at the 9-acre site, and no problems have been found.

A legislative study committee and the EPA proposed tougher regulations regarding water monitoring or leachate at the bottom of landfill sites in 2005, but backed off after officials complained the new regulations would be too expensive to comply with.

That proposal would have allowed for 64 different toxic chemicals to be tested for, instead of the 19 currently required by the EPA. The new proposal expands that number to 77 pollutants which could "leach" in to groundwater supplies, including iron, sulfate, manganese and even toxic adhesives.

Based on the prior study which determined lthat landfill leachate poses a threat to public health and the environment if released to ground water or surface water, and public comments received on the draft rules issued earlier this year, Ohio EPA developed the current proposed rules.

The amended proposed rules focus on five key areas:

- Five-year post-closure care period.

- Post-closure care financial assurance provided by the facility.

- Extension of post-closure care period if there are health or environmental effects.

- A procedure to adjust final closure financial assurance with the issuance of an annual license.

- Monitor landfill eachate at the bottom of the landfill for an established list of contaminants, and if detected, monitor ground water for the detected contaminant.

View the original article here

Anaerobic Digestion News: Biogas from Anaerobic Digestion Can Help Save Our ...

Anaerobic Digestion News: Biogas from Anaerobic Digestion Can Help Save Our ...: Our Angry Dragon cartoon below is intended to be funny and provokes thought about why biogas from anaerobic digestion can help save our pla...

Odour Killing Solution From St Clair, Clean Harbors is a Dangerous Idea

While we are sure that everyone has great sympathy with the locals in St. Clair, who should not have to suffer this odor for one more day, as an experienced leachate treatment engineer it concerns me to read about the solution being adopted. Covering these foul smelling lagoons, which contain a, no doubt, high level of organic contamination is a dangerous route to take. The largely anaerobic leachate which probably over time have also developed an organic sludge below the water which is also anaerobic, will be generating biogas. In fact there are many examples of anaerobic digestion (biogas) plants built on purpose using acetogenic organic wastes in a comparable manner to this.

So, please take care about going down the route of covering leachate lagoons and providing almost no ventilation. If you do, take care to observe good explosion risk assessments (in the EU the ATEX Directive applies) and implement goode safety procedures on-site. In the past it has been seen as a much better idea to dose the leachate as it enters the lagoons with an oxidising agent such as hydrogen peroxide, or even potassium permangenate. Once in an aerobic condition throughout, no more methane will be generated, and the operator could then commence aeration of these lagoons, but aeration into anaerobic conditions at first would just make the odor more pronounced. (If you need expert help on solving leachate odor problems contact us at www.leachate.co.uk .) The article extarct follows. Please visit the link at the bottom of this page to see the original page:

ST. CLAIR  TOWNSHIP - Clean Harbors has spent nearly $1 million on corrective action since last August when an overwhelming stench began impacting neighbours of the hazardous waste facility.

"The sheer volume of exposed leachate couldn't be addressed by snapping our fingers," said the company's compliance director.

Mike Parker, a handful of consultants, and Clean Harbors' managers, spoke to about 35 residents Wednesday at an open house at the Royal Canadian Legion in Corunna, assuring them that months of sickening odour incidents will soon be over.

While some neighbours disagree, company brass are confident the stink is a result of too much leachate at the Telfer Road site.

Since August, Clean Harbors has incinerated approximately 20 million litres of leachate and emptied one of its holding ponds.

By late February, the company expects to completely cover its two leachate ponds with engineered roofs and will easily meet the deadlines directed by the Ministry of Environment, Parker said.

The ministry has ordered Clean Harbors to address its odour issue and reduce the volume of on-site leachate by May.

"We're doing a lot of work that will ultimately reduce the leachate,"

Parker said. "We're doing everything possible to be sure the odour is gone. I'm very confident the major source will be eliminated by May.

"We wouldn't do all this and spent this kind of money if it wasn't going to be affective," he said.

But neighbours at Wednesday's open house weren't so confident.

The odours have impacted their quality of life, made them nauseous, stung their eyes and sent them to emergency.

"You are interfering with my enjoyment of my property," Jim Stenton of Petrolia Line told Clean Harbors' general manager Jim Brown.

Stenton asked Brown why the company doesn't put out a warning through the community warning system known as CVECO when odours are bad.

"It would be better if I had warning so I could get out of my house,"

Stenton said.

"For an odour complaint?" Brown answered. "I don't see it that way."

But, Clean Harbors does alert the Ministry of Environment, he added.

"And once the leachate is under the cover, it will eliminate that septic smell," Brown said. "You'll never get rid of all the odours completely but the really bad smell should be gone."

Clean Harbors has applied for ministry approval to vent the engineered roofs, a move that the neighbours oppose.

"I think everyone is pretty upset about it," said Lori Vokes who represents about 100 area residents.

"They said they were installing airtight covers and now they want to vent them."

The public has until Feb. 12 to comment on Clean Harbors' application to vent.

"We hope enough people will object to make the ministry take a closer look at the application and not just rubber stamp it," said Vokes.

The application can be viewed at www.ebr.gov.on.ca and is number 011 5467.

If approved, each leachate pond will have one vent measuring two inches in diameter, said Parker.

"We'll use it two or three times a week for three to five minutes at a time. If there's a bad odour, we'll shut the valve," he said.

The vents are necessary to release any trapped air under the cover and ensure the ponds work efficiently, Parker added.

Odour complaints related to Clean Harbors' operation continue, said St. Clair Township Mayor Steve Arnold.

Incidents are less frequent and not as intense but are still occurring, he said.

"Usually there isn't a problem with odours at this time of the year,"

said Vokes. "But the last six months have been completely out of the ordinary.

"It's making people nervous about the spring."

Sarnia Observer

View the original article here

Leachate Removed from Illegal Irish Dump

The Irish Times has reported today on a serious environmental crime which unfortunately is costing the local community and the nation a lot of money to clean up. It is bad enough if the site has been filled with no more than municipal solid waste, or commercial waste. Let's hope that the operator as not been accepting hazardous waste, which could make the leachate unaccepatble for treatment at the sewage works. Read our quotation below and also visit the original article at the Irish Times:

THE CLEAN-UP by the Environmental Protection Agency of an illegal dump at Kerdiffstown, Co Kildare, which will take many years to complete is to move a step closer with the removal of 8.5 million litres of polluted liquid from the contaminated site.

(The video below is about a different site.)

The agency spent some €3 million in January and February last year fighting a fire at the dump which resulted in the release of toxic smoke over the Naas area for more than four weeks.

Nephin Trading and associated companies Dean Waste and Jenzsoph Ltd operated at the landfill and recycling facility for 14 years until the agency secured court orders in 2010 shutting it down.

Work last year focused on securing and containing the site to prevent further pollution. The agency is moving to the next phase of removing waste from the site.

The agency has siphoned off more than 8.5 million litres of “leachate” – contaminated liquid from the dump which would otherwise have percolated into the ground.

It is seeking haulage companies to transport the liquid to Dublin’s municipal sewage plant at Ringsend for processing in contracts worth up to €1.5 million for the next four years.

A spokesman for the agency said work was progressing well.

There was a “minor spill” during the collection of leachate last month when a holding tank was overfilled, and approximately 500 litres reached a drain which flows to the Grand Canal.

Corrective action was taken immediately and the impact was “very localised and short-lived”, the agency said.

Further contracts will be put out to tender shortly in relation to site management and investigation to determine the best way to remediate the dump. Some preliminary investigation work was undertaken earlier this year, with the drilling of 24 boreholes to determine the waste buried.

Once the best method for disposing of the solid waste has been determined, the agency hopes to begin excavation of the dump and demolition and removal of the infrastructure on site.

This work is expected to be largely complete by 2017 and will be followed by covering the landfill with soil and plants, and the installation of permanent gas and leachate controls. However, the agency estimates the site will require management until 2047.

While the cost of the clean-up has been estimated at more than €30 million, accurate costs will not be known until the precise nature of the waste has been determined. The agency is continuing several legal actions in an attempt to recoup the costs.

The High Court last year rejected an application by the agency to make the directors of Nephin Trading personally liable for the clean-up costs, because relevant EU regulations had not been transposed into Irish law.

View the original article here

Old Albion Landfill Oozes Leachate - US

This article expresses some surprise that Old Albion Landfill still oozes Leachate. Leachate is being produced "unexpectedly" long after landfill closure at the Old Albion Landfill, and yet it has always been apparent that modern landfills may take centuries before leachate ceases. The highly contaminated liquid was first spotted about two years ago, oozing from the site also known as the Orleans Sanitary Landfill. It is a 35-acre site that was closed and capped in the mid-1990s. Read on for the article and visit the original site for further information:

The liquid – leachate or garbage juice from the landfill – had been pumped and hauled to the Albion sewer plant for about 15 years. That was until 2009, when a post-closure account, set up to pay for the landfill’s leachate pumping, was depleted.

Now the landfill is full of water, and it’s migrating out of the pumping holes in the big mound along Densmore Road. Dan Schuth, manager of the Orleans County Soil and Water Conservation District, worries the leachate could reach Sandy Creek.

The state Department of Environmental Conservation said the leachate doesn’t pose an imminent threat, but the DEC wants the liquid pumped and hauled away.

“There is no cause for immediate concern,” said Linda Vera, DEC citizen participation specialist. “However, since leachate is accumulating within the Orleans Sanitary Landfill, it should be routinely collected to avoid the potential of groundwater contamination.”

Groundwater monitoring wells surround OSL, and samples were routinely collected and analyzed until the fund was exhausted, Vera said.

Albion town officials have been approached by Richard Penfold from Blasdell about a new landfill in the community, a project that was first proposed by Waste Management in the mid-1990s. The DEC approved a permit for Waste Management, but the Town Board later rejected the project, a decision that was upheld in court.

As part of its proposal for a new 78-acre landfill, Waste Management offered to take care of OSL and another neighboring landfill, the 18-acre McKenna site. McKenna is a Superfund site and continues to have its leachate pumped and hauled to the Albion sewer plant.

Albion town officials don’t believe OSL is a town responsibility.

“It’s a privately owned site,” said Robert Roberson, the attorney for the town. “It’s not the town’s. We don’t have anything to do with it.”

Waste Management was leasing the property from John and Irene Smith, the former OSL owners, but that lease ended last year and the site is back is the hands of the Smith’s bankrupt estate, said Dawn Allen, the county’s real property tax director.

“The leachate needs to be pumped out and hauled away,” Roberson said. “I don’t know whose responsibility it is.”

Waste Management took over the OSL site after the operators declared bankruptcy in the early 1990s, leaving an open landfill. Waste Management took in more garbage at the site, ensuring the landfill was properly capped. The company set aside some of the money from that operation in 1993 and 1994 for a post-closure account. That fund ran out of money in 2009, Vera said.

She said the ongoing care for the landfill should fall on the owners, the Smiths, who declared bankruptcy. The town or the county, because they never operated the site, isn’t required to take over the post-closure care of the landfill, Vera said.

“However, either or both may choose to provide post-closure care due to concern about the environment,” she said.

During last week’s Town Board meeting, Roberson said that Penfold, a former president of CID Landfill, believes the Waste Management DEC permit is still valid in Albion.

That permit expires in November 2013, Vera said, but “many factors may complicate another operator's pursuit of that permit.” The permit has since been suspended and the original project, approved by the DEC in 2003, never commenced. Waste Management also requested that a related DEC air permit be discontinued.

While Schuth is worried that the leachate could reach Sandy Creek, DEC inspectors see no evidence of that so far, Vera said.

The surface water from the landfill drains to a quarry on the south side of the canal, Vera said. That quarry then discharges under the canal to another quarry on the north side of the canal, which then discharges to a tributary to Sandy Creek. Although the canal is close to the landfill, “there is little likelihood that any leachate from OSL would enter the canal,” she said.

Schuth, the Soil and Water leader, also expressed concern that the continued water buildup in the landfill could jeopardize the structural integrity of the landfill.

Structural stability of the landfill is difficult to predict, but it would be unlikely there will be a “blowout” of the side slope of the landfill, Vera said.

“A more likely possibility is leachate seeping into the groundwater over time because of the buildup of leachate on the liner,” she said.

The older portion of the landfill only has a compacted soil liner, which met the regulations when that section was built. Later phases of the landfill were constructed with improved liner systems, but none conform to the current requirement of a double composite liner system, Vera said.

Roberson, the attorney for the town, doesn’t expect the issue of caring for the landfill to go away anytime soon. And Albion won’t be alone as more privately owned landfills meet their capacity and face ongoing monitoring and maintenance.

“This is a looming problem down the road,” Roberson said. “These kinds of problems will only get more pronounced over the years.”

View the original article here

The Top 5 Tips On Leachate Treatment by Short Rotation Willow Coppicing

Many people face different challenges daily. Lots of people are called on to to deal with the challenge of leachate treatment by short rotation willow coppicing. Some apparently breeze through it, succeeding easily. Some do not ever succeed, although they try quite hard. Exactly why is this? Why is it that way? Exactly what are the key components that pre-determine probable success or failure? Which are the keys to finding yourself in that group that are going to enjoy success?

The true secret to success is in the planning, in identifying all important tasks beforehand. When you have an approach, once you know how, it is not difficult! And so, are you really serious about leachate treatment by short rotation willow coppicing? Why then you will want to get yourself "a track to run on", and know very well what it takes, up-front. In a nutshell, you'll want to acquire understanding of precisely what is involved and why it is important.

Let us discuss the 5 most essential things to know/steps to consider adopting to be able to succeed at leachate treatment by short rotation willow coppicing:

1. Short rotation willow coppicing which is often called SRC is a sustainable and low cost method for leachate treatment, but it will only ever be suitable for a very limited number of landfills. So why might this be important? The reader of this article should not run-off and assume it will be suitable or even approved by the regulatory authorities for his landfill site. So if I follow this route what is going to happen? A small proportion of landfill site owners will find that they can obtain cheap leachate treatment and disposal, while at the same time obtaining good green credentials for operating a sustainable energy efficient leachate treatment method.

2. The SRC method is based upon the irrigation of leachate into the willow crop only during periods when there is a soil-moisture deficit and this is mostly only during the summer months. That'll be apt to be important since the Environment Agency will expect that the irrigation only takes place when there will be a benefit to the crop from the nutrients in the leachate and those nutrients and all other contaminants must not run-off to pollute water courses nearby. And also, because if there is no benefit to a crop then the process is one of waste processing and not one of growing a valuable crop which will have willing buyers keen to use the chipped wood for a valuable purpose, such as heating homes and schools.

3. A successful application for a SRC method to treat leachate will have to tackle the problem of salinity build-up from leachate (which naturally has a higher than normal salt content) irrigated during the dry months. This is because if salt builds up in any soil the point will eventually be reached when it becomes too saline to support the willows. Controlled salinity flushing in wet weather in each autumn/ winter is essential for this method and it must be achieved without raising the salinity of nearby watercourses significantly at all. Those proposing SRC for leachate treatment must always have a "flushing method" or work-around for this problem, in their project. This could certainly also be a wise idea because the EA will normally expect this to be a problem considered and solved (at least in theory) before any submission for modification of the Environmental Permit can be passed.

4. The growing and harvesting of the short rotation coppicing can be sub-contracted to a local farmer. Alright, so what is really important about this? Most landfill operators don't posses the right equipment, or the trained staff, to undertake the farming work involved in cropping and chipping the SRC. Will there be some other reason? Some of the plant such as the willow coppice harvester equipment that most UK SRC use, is highly specialist and only used once every 3 years when the coppice shoots and foliage reach an optimum size/yield, and thus is equipment best hired rather than bought.

5. Leachate still, even from the most modern and highly controlled landfill sites, contains some additional trace quantities of metals, and like the salinity these must not be allowed to build up in the site. This means that they must be regulalrly monitored in most cases. And why might this become a good plan? As monitoring will normally show no measurable build-up for modern MSWs. What other reasons do you have back this up? The healthy appearance of the growing plants.

If you happen to really want to succeed at leachate treatment by short rotation willow coppicing, simply observe the above 5 steps. Then succeed and enjoy all of the benefits, enjoyment and fruits that go with your success. Disregarding them will set you up for sub par results. A lot worse results than might possibly otherwise be yours.

Discover some ways to understand leachate treatment by short rotation willow coppicing at our willow leachate treatment web site at leachate.co.uk/main/leachate-treatment/willow-coppicing-for-leachate-treatment.

Landfill Beset by Leachate Problems Seeks Police Escort - India

Not knowing the issues here, this article is hard to understand. It does not actually state why a police escort is sought, but presumably the local residents are so fed up with the landfill operator over bad-neighbour issues that there could be trouble for the contractors bringing in materials to remedy the problem. This seems crazy. If there are problems and the deliveries will reduce them the local people should allow the work to go ahead. Read the artcle below and visit the original web site by following the lick at the bottom of the page:

As part of resuming work on the sanitary landfill inside the Vilappilsala solid waste treatment plant, the City Corporation has requested the Police Department to provide escort for transporting the clay required for lining the various layers of the landfill.

According to officials, around 300 loads of clay will be required for layering the landfill which is being constructed to dispose of the garbage rejects that have accumulated inside the plant over the years.

Transportation of clay to the Vilappilsala plant would commence on February 13 and would continue for nearly a week, Deputy Mayor G. Happykumar said.

“Urban Affairs Minister P.K. Kunhalikutty had the other day convened a meeting of contractors who have taken up works of sanitary landfill and leachate treatment plant inside the plant and officials of the Kerala Sustainable Urban Development Project (KSUDP), the nodal agency for the projects. At the meeting, it was decided to immediately resume the pending work in the plant as per the directive of the High Court. As per this, we are resuming the work on the sanitary landfill. Work on the leachate treatment plant will be resumed soon,” Mr Happykumar said.

Corporation health officer D. Sreekumar said that the sanitary landfill would have the capacity of 95 tonnes of garbage rejects a day for seven years. The Rs.6 crore project was being funded by the Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission (JNNURM).

Mr. Happykumar said that construction of sanitary landfill and leachate teratment plant would be completed by March-April. “Whether the plant will be closed in the future or not, completion of these two project is crucial to combat the environment pollution in the plant. Both the accumulated rejects as well as leachate seeping from it will have to be properly treated, even if the government decided to decommission the plant,'' he said.

View the original article here

Perry County landfill gets permit to expand - The Buckeye Lake Beacon

COLUMBUS – Ohio EPA has issued Tunnel Hill Partners LP a final solid waste permit and modification to its wastewater discharge permit. The final air permit was issued earlier this summer. The company requested the permits to expand the landfill at 2500 Township Road 205, Route 2 in New Lexington. The landfill spans Pike, Harrison and Clayton townships in Perry County.

Ohio EPA held a public hearing on May 11, 2011, and an information session on June 3, 2010, to explain the proposed expansion, answer questions and receive public comments. Before issuing the permits, Ohio EPA reviewed the technical aspects of the applications and determined that they met the requirements of state and federal clean air and water quality standards and solid waste rules.

The solid waste permit will allow a lateral and vertical expansion at the 544-acre facility. The lateral expansion will increase the approved disposal area by 69 acres. The vertical expansion authorizes new disposal capacity above the previously authorized 49-acre disposal area. This will bring the landfill’s footprint to 118 acres. ( Currently, the landfill’s developed footprint is 11.7 acres, though it has been previously approved to occupy 49 acres.)

Additionally, the permit increases the authorized maximum daily waste receipt from 5,000 tons to 8,000 tons. If the landfill took in 8,000 tons of waste per day, it would take 11.5 years to fill. The landfill design includes a composite liner; leachate collection (the water that has come in contact with buried landfill wastes); surface water management; ground water monitoring; and final closure cap. The permit also requires 30 years of post-closure care and financial assurance for closure and post-closure care.

A draft modification to the landfill’s wastewater discharge permit took effect on September 1, 2011. The modification was required since the surface area contributing storm water runoff to the sedimentation pond will change. Landfill leachate is not permitted to go to the sediment pond. The permit limits discharges of pollutants into Rush Creek.

In June, Ohio EPA issued the company a final air permit that establishes allowable emissions from unpaved roadways and parking areas, the municipal solid waste landfill and rail unloading areas based on an anticipated increase in the waste acceptance rate. The air permit also establishes requirements for landfill gas collection and control.

The permits and related materials are available for review at Ohio EPA’s Southeast District Office (2195 Front Street, Logan, Ohio 43138) by first calling (740) 385-8501 or (800) 686-7330.

Issuance of the final solid waste permit and wastewater permit modification can be appealed to the Ohio Environmental Review Appeals Commission (ERAC). Appeals generally must be filed within 30 days of issuing the final action; therefore, Ohio EPA recommends that anyone wishing to file an appeal contact ERAC online or at (614) 466-8950 for more information.

View the original article here

Leachate Problems are Now Minor in Eastern Creek Sydney Landfill's 5 Clean-Up Orders in 5 Years

The locals say that there is a "Pollution trail to this megadump", and yet leachate problems affecting watercourses don't seem to be major, and are less acute than in the previous 4 years this article mentions. It is an operational hazard for a landfill owner that delivery vehicles may fly tip, and the public blame the site operator for transgressions which in truth are beyond the control of the landfill operator. Nevertheless, there is no excuse for leachate odours when it must surely be possible to recirculate leachate inoto old mature waste where it will be treated anaeribically and without odur within the waste? Read the article below about this case and visit the original article site by using the link below the quoted article:

IAN MALOUF, the man who boasts he is opening the biggest landfill site in the southern hemisphere at Eastern Creek, acknowledges pollution lapses by his waste empire. But he blames them on rogue employees and waste transporters.

(Video shows Lucas Heights Landfill, Sydney and not the landfill in the article.)

Mr Malouf, the self-made millionaire behind Dial a Dump, told The Sun-Herald that he runs a conscientious business and pollution offences this year arose from employees ''breaching strict guidelines and procedures of which they were adequately aware''.

But it is not the first time. Companies linked to Mr Malouf have been subject to five clean-up orders in the past five years, according to the Office of Environment and Heritage.

In April this year, the OEH received numerous complaints about odours again coming from Mr Malouf's Alexandra Landfill site. A surprise inspection found a pipe connected to infested leachate, which was pumping it into a stormwater drain.

Then, in June, OEH inspectors again visited the site and found his wife Larissa's company, Boiling Pty Ltd, had 170,000-cubic-metre stockpiles of waste contaminated with asbestos. Other pollution breaches date back to 2002, when Mr Malouf's company Alexandria Landfill Pty Ltd was ordered to clean up leachates after residents complained about a stench.

In 2007, another property, at Marulan, was found with 1300 cubic metres of asbestos-contaminated soil levelled and spread across it. This property belongs to Mr Malouf's mother-in-law, Kathleen Hopkins's company, Kathkin Pty Ltd, as trustee for his five children.

More below

A spokesman for the Premier, Barry O'Farrell, said he was made aware of the investigations by the OEH before attending the opening party for Mr Malouf's new venture at the Eastern Creek landfill site on December 8 - a $500,000 celebration that featured 600 guests, acrobats, fireworks and a lion cub.

Mr O'Farrell's spokesman said: ''That's why he went out of his way during his remarks at the opening to say the NSW government has a strong independent environmental regulator and he expects all companies to comply or face the full force of the law.''

But inquiries by The Sun-Herald have revealed that Mr Malouf - who with his wife has donated almost $40,000 to the Liberal Party in recent years - has not yet been granted a licence to operate the landfill known as the Genesis facility. The application is with the OEH, which is considering it.

Alexandria Landfill and Boiling are yet to complete the clean-up ordered at the Alexandria sites.

Mr Malouf said the property on Red Hills Road at Marulan was cleaned up at his own expense. He said it was inadvertently contaminated with asbestos after a delivery of landscaping materials to the family property.

''Naturally I would not endanger the health and wellbeing of my children intentionally,'' he said.

More below

Mr Malouf said the companies had never been prosecuted and that he ''would have preferred that these events necessitating clean-up notices had not occurred''.

In an emailed response to questions, he said: ''As the CEO of the organisation which has held environmental protection licences for almost 25 years, it is understandable that during that period of time one or two incidents would be expected to occur. Those employees never get named but as a hands-on CEO I must carry that burden.''

Mr Malouf lists his address as a mansion in Vaucluse which traded last year for $15 million and was once owned by the Adler family. He is a law school dropout who decided that his future was in waste. After leaving school, he has said, he raised $700 cash to buy a truck and went door-to-door offering to take rubbish to the tip. He bought a tipper truck and a bobcat and his mother answered the phones while his father helped shovel loads of rubbish. Over the past two decades, he has built the Dial a Dump empire which stretches from skip bins to waste and recycling.

Records show he bought the Alexandria Landfill site from Sydney City Council in 2000 and created a recycling facility. In 2002 he was issued with four clean-up notices after the OEH received complaints relating to odours. Inspectors found landfill leachate was causing the stench. Another clean-up notice was issued after failed attempts to fix the problem and complaints increased.

In 2005 Mr Malouf paid $143 million for the Eastern Creek site and he said he spent another $157 million developing it. It will boast state-of-the-art recycling technology. He has promised there will be no odours, and lining of the pit to stop leaching.

Asked about the leachate at the Alexandria site, Mr Malouf said: ''We are not aware that it [pumping of leachates] has ever happened and the matter is currently being investigated by OEH. Management has conducted an internal voluntary environmental audit and believes it has isolated the identity of a person or persons who may have potentially breached the site's operational procedures.''

The OEH report said the asbestos ''stockpiles'' at the same site were believed to have been generated by the processing of waste. Mr Malouf blamed a waste transporter for depositing the material. He said that transporter had now been banned.

The OEH said it had ''current'' investigations into the Malouf companies, which were preparing advice about how to fix the problems.

View the original article here

Vilappilsala Capacity of garbage plant inadequate

Leachate from yard frequently reaches the Karamana river

The garbage plant at Vilappilsala can effectively process only a portion of the solid waste that reaches the yard from the capital city, a report submitted by the Kerala State Pollution Control Board (PCB) to the High Court of Kerala has observed.

The plant has the capacity to process only 90 tonnes of solid waste a day.

The average quantity of waste reaching the 46-acre plant daily, until it was shut down on December 21, 2011, was around 203 tonnes, of which 114 tonnes was biodegradable waste, according to the report.

PCB environmental engineer K.R. Santhoshkumar and advocate commission K. Meera were tasked by the High Court to inspect the plant and report the facilities there.

The report further observed that the leachate flowing from two uncapped landfills inside the plant frequently reached the Karamana river through the Meenambally canal, causing river water pollution.

Although the leachate is collected in temporary ponds and treated using alum, lime and bleaching powder, these temporary measures were inadequate to check the pollution caused by the leachate.

The PCB has in its report directed the City Corporation to commission the permanent leachate treatment plant under construction inside the plant within 60 days.

The board has recommended the construction of a dike between the landfills and the stream to prevent flow of leachate into the river.In order to control the stench emanating from the windrow composts in the plant, the PCB has recommended frequent turning of windrows or providing forced aeration. As of now the windrows are turned every five days.

Another recommendation to control the stench was providing sufficient ventilation by providing adequate number of air blowers and bio-filters.

The PCB report also makes a set of recommendations for maintaining the general hygienic conditions inside the plant.

Providing a 100 meter buffer zone around the periphery of the plant is among these.

Ensuring source level segregation of plastic and biodegradable waste and transporting garbage to the plant in covered vehicles with leachate collection facility are among the other recommendations.

The PCB report has directed the Corporation to complete all the recommended modifications at the Vilappilsala plant within 60 days.

View the original article here

Guatali Leachate Raises Sewage Works Discharge Issues - Plus Funny Leachate Drinking Video!

Guam Waterworks Authority will need to be careful about accepting leachate at their sewage works. Leachate  being a very high strength liquid could nock out a smallish treatment works. Here, quoted below, is the article to which I refer:

A company that hopes to build a landfill in Santa Rita has proposed to truck leachate to the Hag't'a wastewater treatment plant, but hasn't sought the approval of the Guam Waterworks Authority.

WE HOPE YOU LIKE OUR (UNRELATED) LEACHATE VIDEO BELOW. WE FOUND IT AMUSING!

Wagdy Guirguis, president of Guam Resource Recovery Partners, said Tuesday that trucking leachate is just a backup plan that will never actually be used, but his company's assessment of its proposed Guatali landfill says otherwise.

And there have been no discussions about Waterworks accepting thousands of gallons of leachate, which is basically garbage juice, from the Guatali landfill, said agency spokeswoman Heidi Ballendorf.

If a truck full of leachate shows up tomorrow unannounced, it would be turned away, she said. Unless an agreement is negotiated to preserve water quality, the Waterworks will reject the waste, she said.

That could be a problem for Guam Resource Recovery Partners, which is seeking a permit for its Guatali landfill proposal from the Guam Environmental Protection Agency.

Guam EPA has asked the public to comment on the controversial proposal. Comments are due by Dec. 13.

Guam Resource Recovery Partners has proposed to build its landfill on an 87-acre parcel of Chamorro Land Trust property in the Guatali area of Santa Rita. The 22-acre landfill cells would be bracketed by wetlands and north of a river basin.

If the landfill permit is approved, Guam Resource Recovery Partners plans to collect garbage on the property for three to five years, at which point it hopes to install an incinerator, which will burn the waste to produce energy. An incinerator of this type is currently illegal in Guam, so the plan hinges on a revision of law and additional permits.

However, in the years before the incinerator is built, Guam Resource Recovery Partners plans to stockpile waste in its two landfill cells, and a landfill facility like that will inevitably produce leachate.

The Guatali landfill is expected to produce an average of 36,000 gallons of leachate daily, according to an impact assessment filed with the permit application. The total will increase in the rainy season, when more storm water seeps through the landfill.

According to the proposal, some of the leachate will be absorbed through a process called "recirculation," which filters the trashy liquid back through the landfill, where it is re-absorbed.

Any leftover leachate will be trucked to the Hag't'a wastewater treatment plant, the impact assessment states. The document doesn't estimate how much liquid would be sent to the treatment plant.

If Guatali goes as planned, no leachate will make the trip to Hag't'a, Guirguis said. Despite the statements in the impact assessment, Guirguis said Guam Resource Recovery Partners expects that all of the Guatali leachate will be absorbed or evaporated when it recirculates through the landfill.

The company hasn't negotiated an agreement with GWA because it doesn't expect it will need one, Guirguis said. Recirculation should dispose of all the landfill's leachate through absorption and evaporation, even during the rainy season, Guirguis said.

The landfill impact assessment says the exact opposite.

"It is expected that leachate generation will exceed losses due to absorption and evaporation during the rainy season," the Guam Resource Recovery Partners document states. "At such times, leachate will be trucked off site for disposal at the Agana wastewater treatment plant."

Regardless of whether it's a backup plan or not, if Guam Resource Recovery Partners wants to dispose of a single drop of leachate in Hag't'a, it will have to broker a deal with GWA, Ballendorf said.

For example, Gershman, Brickner & Bratton Inc., the federal receiver in charge of solid waste operations in Guam, including the government landfill in Inarajan, only was allowed to send leachate to the Inarajan wastewater treatment plant after negotiating a similar agreement.

Now the receiver is able to pump its leachate to GWA's southern facility, but the company had to spend millions to "do it right," Ballendorf said.

"They promised to fund a five-year study of leachate to make sure it doesn't hurt the wastewater plant," Ballendorf wrote in an email. "If the leachate becomes a problem, they have agreed to put in a pre-treatment facility to fix that. Money is put aside in escrow for that."

David Manning, a local representative for Gershman, Brickner & Bratton Inc., wrote in an email that the receiver funded some capacity upgrades to ensure the Inarajan plant wouldn't be overwhelmed by the increase in waste.

Guirguis insisted the Layon landfill's leachate pipe wasn't in operation yet, but Manning and GWA confirmed it was. Guirguis also said the Layon landfill was using the re-circulation method, but Manning said this was never considered by the receiver.

"While I am not an expert in this area, ... I do know that one of the primary reasons we did not consider the re-circulation method is that it apparently has significant potential for problems in wet climates," Manning said.

View the original article here