Sunday, 29 May 2011 14:04 Written by Kevin Kerrigan Friday, 27 May 2011 17:54 Guam News - Guam News
Guam - At the request of Federal receiver GBB, District Court Judge Francis Tydingco-Gatewood has ordered Guam EPA to investigate a number of dump sites within a 3 mile radius of the Ordot Dump.
In a Special Report to the Court filed Thursday, the receiver cites "several dump sites" near the Ordot Dump, and one very large one. The exact number is not stated.
Its not clear whether any of these sites are properly permitted, but the receiver notes that none of them are lined and therefore a source of leachate, "all dump sites produce leachate," states the receiver's report and leachate is "one of the principal causes of pollution from the Ordot Dump and one of the primary reasons for the Consent Decree."
Read Federal Receiver GBB's request for order
In its request for an inspection of these sites, GBB notes that the "identification of all sources of leachate and other groundwater contamination is an important step" in the final closure of the Ordot dump which is slated to close August 31.
And the leachate from these other, unlined dumps, are a "potential problem for accurately understanding and mitigating the pollution coming from the Ordot Dump itself " and "potentially complicates the process for final closure of the Ordot Dump."
Read the District Court's Order
GBB requested, and the Judge agreed in an order issued Friday, to require Guam EPA to investigate all dump sites within a 3 mile radius of the Ordot Dump to determine:
1. The compliance of these dump sites with applicable Guam and federal laws and regulations; 2. The size and approximate leachate potential for each such dump site; 3. The party responsible for the site; 4. The potential of the dump site to complicate the closure of the Ordot Dump; and 5. The steps recommended or taken by GEPA to eliminate these dump sites as a source of contamination of the environment in the vicinity of the Ordot Dump.
County considers transferring ownership of site to state
As the state of Minnesota prepares to spend $5.5 million to improve a closed landfill in International Falls, the question of whether Koochiching County or the state should own the property has been raised.
The landfill located in International Falls is owned by Koochiching County, but is subject to a landfill cleanup agreement with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, which holds an easement to the property and response action equipment on the property, according to Tom Newman, land manager with the Closed Landfill and Superfund programs of the Remediation Division of the MPCA.
Newman met with the county board this week to propose that the county turn total ownership of the property over to the state.
Newman told the board that the MPCA used proceeds from the sale of state general obligation bonds for capital costs of environmental response actions that the MPCA took at the landfill beginning in 2003. As a result, certain requirements on sale or other disposition of the property are imposed. To ensure that requirements of state law and the commissioner’s order are carried out, a declaration must be signed by the state and county and recorded.
Newman explained that the state is responsible for the long-term care of the landfill, but Koochiching County also has liability as the owners of the property.Newman said the transfer of ownership to the state would make his duties easier.
(Video has no connection with the article.)
Meanwhile, Newman said the MPCA is seeking bonding money this session to make improvements at the landfill site. Should the Legislature not grant the money, the MPCA would seek it the next year.
He said the $5.5 million would be used to place an impervious cover over the landfill; upgrade the system that collects water leaching from the landfill, thereby improving drainage; and increase the amount of leachate removed from the site from 6,000 gallons per day to 24,000 gallons per day. Should the leachate amount increase as expected, the state would consider installing a forced main line from thel leachate pond to the North Koochiching Sanitary Sewer District.
Commissioners asked if the county could dovetail on the state’s project should it move forward with installing a line to the sewer treatment plant by connecting nearby residences to sewer at the same time.
Newman said the county project would need to meet the time line of the state.
Commissioners asked questions about liability should the leachate “plume” move off the site toward residences.
Newman said the state accepts no liability, just responsibility.
“My job is to make sure the plume does not move off site,” he said, adding that he would guide development and the county could implement development plans to avoid installing wells nearby.
Should the plume move toward existing residences in a natural way, the state would take action to keep people safe, including installing filtration systems on wells in the area of concern.
However, he said, questions could arise should a high capacity well be installed nearby that draws the plume toward residences and contaminates wells.
A closed landfill in Northome was also discussed, and Newman said the state could provide easements for access to logging areas, but the landfill itself could not be used as a staging area for logs.
“All our concerns are about houses and development — people putting wells in,” he said.
Newman said at some point in the future, all properly closed and handled landfills can be used. However, he said it may take generations before the properties stop producing methane gas and leachate allowing for development.
He said a bill at the Legislature now would allow the state to “delist” all or portions of closed landfills that staff feel are safe for development. Now, he said, the closed landfills can not be used.
Newman was asked to research whether the state would consider a reverter clause that would provide state ownership to the property, but would revert back to county ownership at some point. View the original article here
WHEELING - With permission from the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection, Chesapeake Energy is dumping waste at the Short Creek Landfill.
"The advantage of taking this waste to the landfills is there are protective liners in landfills and the leachate is collected and tested," said DEP spokeswoman Kathy Cosco. "This is really drilling waste, which includes drill cuttings and the drilling mud that is used in the process."
During a recent federal court hearing in a case in which Wetzel County property owners Larry and Jana Rine are suing Chesapeake for allegedly dumping benzene and radioactive material into a large hole on the Rines' property, Chesapeake attorney Timothy Miller noted Chesapeake has been taking drilling waste to the Short Creek Landfill on North Fork Road.
None of this material seems to be radioactive, however. Testifying on behalf of Chesapeake, environmental consultant Ernest Franz said a set of alarms on the sides of the landfill's entrance would sound if the truck contained radioactive material.
He said no truckloads of Chesapeake waste have been turned away from the landfill for this reason.
"Chesapeake utilizes a closed loop drilling process throughout the Marcellus (Shale). This process separates drill cuttings into steel bins that are taken off site for disposal in approved regional landfills," Chesapeake's Director of Corporate Development Stacey Brodak said when asked for further explanation of the comments from Miller and Franz.
Kosco said the DEP regulates West Virginia's landfills but does not have a specific regulation for the disposal of drilling waste. She said the drill cuttings are classified as "special waste," like gasoline contaminated waste resulting from highway accidents.
"Like when a tractor-trailer overturns and diesel fuel is spilled, the absorbent material used to clean up that spill is considered a special waste and can be taken to landfills that are permitted to accept it," she said.
Cosco said the DEP sent letters to landfills in 2009 to let them know they would need to modify their permits to accept the drilling waste. Testing for certain metals and petroleum hydrocarbons is required under the new regulations.
Dumping the waste in landfills may be a viable alternative for natural gas drillers because West Virginia's public water systems are no longer able to accept drilling waste. According to the DEP, Wheeling-based Liquid Assets Disposal allegedly dumped briny wastewater from gas drilling sites at the Center Wheeling pollution plant from January 2009 to February 2010. During this time, LAD allegedly exceeded the 9,000-pound daily chloride limitation for Wheeling's plant on about 50 occasions. This resulted in the DEP issuing a $414,000 fine against the city.
Wheeling Public Works Director Russell Jebbia has said the city will follow DEP guidelines in not accepting anymore drilling waste.
Teck Metals compensates Trail, B.C., for mercury spill into Columbia River(The Canadian Press) – 2 days ago
VANCOUVER — Teck Metals says it accepts full responsibility for a spill of mercury into the Columbia River in Trail, B.C.
The discharge occurred Oct. 7, 2010, just weeks after leachate from Teck's lead and zinc smelting operation overflowed into Stoney Creek, near the company's huge operation in southeastern B.C.
A lengthy investigation under the Fisheries Act and the Environmental Management Act ended with a series of recommendations aimed at ensuring a similar thing doesn't happen again.
The company has now agreed to pay $325,000 in compensation for the two spills.
Several community and environmental groups in the Trail area will share the cash.
Teck says it has also taken steps to avoid future incidents, including proceeding with the second phase of an $8.3-million effluent spill reduction program.
TORONTO, ON, Canada, Apr. 26, 2011 -- Under an MOU with Hasar's Grupo Ecologico, Blue Gold Canada plans to install a wastewater treatment plant at a landfill in Guadalajara, Mexico.
The Blue Gold/Dove Biotech wastewater treatment plant will have the capacity to treat 50,000 liters of water per hour and will use a proprietary organic/natural solution called CWP-121 to remove the contamination from the leachate pools. The treated effluent will then be used for agricultural applications.
The project is scheduled to be installed later this year.
Thursday, 21 April 2011 09:43 Press Release Latest Local News ( 0 Votes ) Chicago--(ENEWSPF)--April 21, 2011. Attorney General Lisa Madigan has filed a water pollution complaint against the owner of a dairy farm under construction in Jo Daviess County after a pink and purple-colored liquid flowed into the South Fork of the Apple River. It is alleged the liquid was leachate from silage stored at the facility.
(Video and article have no connection.)
Traditions South Dairy, 12504 E. Canyon Road near Stockton, is owned by A.J. Bos of Bakersfield, Calif. Bos’ Tradition Investments, LLC is named in the complaint filed yesterday with the Illinois Pollution Control Board (IPBC).
According to Madigan’s complaint, on Oct. 1, 2010, the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA) investigated a citizen complaint of discoloration in the west branch of the South Fork. Inspectors traced the color back to a location at the dairy where a field tile discharged into the tributary. Results of samples collected by the IEPA revealed, among other things, an elevated level of suspended solids attributable to the discharge of silage leachate. In addition, the unnatural color also violates state water regulations. Traditions employees told the IEPA the silage was collected at the dairy in anticipation of livestock that had yet arrived and leachate from the silage was stored in a holding pit at the dairy. The contract land applicator told inspectors he applied approximately 320,000 gallons of the silage leachate on five acres the previous day as well as Oct. 1, 2010. Madigan’s complaint requests the IPCB to schedule a hearing in Jo Daviess County where Traditions Investments will have an opportunity to answer the five counts in the complaint that includes water pollution and operating without a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit. Each count seeks a civil penalty of $50,000 per violation and an additional $10,000 for each day the violation continued. Senior Assistant Attorney General Jane McBride is handling the case for Madigan’s Environmental Bureau in Springfield. Source: illinoisattorneygeneral.gov View the original article here
The city is moving ahead with plans to build a leachate treatment facility at the municipally owned Trail Road landfill—more than seven years after city council first floated the idea.
Over the next three years, $9 million has been set aside to study and build the on-site facility, which will need to be operational by 2015, city spokesperson Jocelyne Turner confirmed in an email.
Landfill leachate is water, generally rain or snow, that seeps through garbage and extracts potentially harmful contaminants. It can pose serious environmental risks if it ends up in the groundwater—precisely the concern that Barrhaven residents brought to council in 2004, when the city was planning to build a pipeline under their homes that would shuttle leachate into the sewer system.
Later that year, council directed the city to study on-site leachate management as well. But the plans were shelved after a new stormwater plan at the Trail Road site, combined with a shift in the city’s overall waste management strategy, led to a significant decline in the amount of leachate being produced, said Turner.
No leachate escaped the site in 2010, she said. But current landfill usage rates mean that by 2015, the landfill cap—the impermeable barrier that separates the contaminated waste from the surface—will need to be removed to expand the site. And with the cap gone, snow and rain will collect and need to be treated, she said.
Most of the overall cost—$8 million—has been earmarked for the construction of the treatment facility in 2014. An additional $800,000 in 2012 will go towards “pretreatment” of the leachate, while the final $200,000 will be spent this year on consulting fees “to select the most effective leachate treatment” at the site, said Turner.
Although the city has not revealed what options are currently being considered, one possible idea might be to incorporate some sort of membrane bioreactor system into the facility, says Roberto Narbaitz, an engineering professor at the University of Ottawa.
Such a system would use bacteria to break down the leachate, which would then be filtered through a thin ceramic membrane, leaving hazardous solids behind, says Narbaitz. The relatively expensive technology would give citizens “bang for your buck” at the start of the process, he says. But once the contaminants are no longer biologically reducible, “it’s not so fantastic," he added.
The “most logical” step would be to treat on-site and revive the cost-effective pipeline idea, although many municipalities are now hesitant to go that route, Narbaitz said.
“There’s fear that there may be some toxic contaminants coming from that landfill ... The possibility is there, but there’s a lot of dilution taking place.”
In her email, Turner said the city can use tanker trucks to haul leachate from the Trail Road landfill to the Robert O. Pickard Environmental Centre, the city's wastewater treatment facility, if necessary. No one from the city was available for an in-person interview.
There are citizens living in the vicinity of the Trail Road landfill whose wells are still contaminated by leachate that, in the past, had seeped into the groundwater, says Ottawa riverkeeper Meredith Brown.
Historically, the city has responded to concerns about leachate only because they’re mandated to do so by the Ministry of the Environment, says Brown, whose organization advocates on behalf of the Ottawa River.
“They’re dealing with it because the province makes them deal with it, essentially,” said Brown. “They have no choice. They’re not doing it out of the goodness of their hearts.”
Jason Bean/Las Vegas Review-Journal Kenton Lee talks at an Earth Day rally Friday about health problems he blames on operations at the Reid Gardner coal-fired power plant. He is joined by other Moapa Pauites and Sierra Club members during the 6 p.m. rally outside the Southern Nevada Health District office on Shadow Lane
In a rally to commemorate Earth Day, about 25 environmentalists and members of the Moapa Band of Paiutes gathered outside Southern Nevada Health District offices Friday to protest the board's previous approval of an application to expand a coal-ash landfill near the tribe's reservation.
They said they want the health district board to rescind its Oct. 28 action and deny NV Energy a permit to expand its landfill at the Reid Gardner Generating Station, 50 miles northeast of Las Vegas, when the board meets Thursday. The existing landfill is 91 acres and has no barrier to keep contaminants from leaching into groundwater. The expansion would be 24 acres and have a single-layer barrier against leaching.
At the rally, Southern Paiutes said they continue to experience respiratory problems and other health effects from coal-ash dust that blows on windy days from the plant's existing landfill and evaporation pond operations. They also fear long-term pollution of groundwater that feeds the Muddy River.
"It smells like rotten eggs," said 21-year-old Ashly Osborne, holding a sign: "Big Coal and Big Oil Make Us Sick," as she stood in front of the health district building on Shadow Lane.
Another woman complained of the rotten-egg smell from hydrogen sulfide gas that emanates from the ponds. It stems from a liquid used to extract an air pollutant, sulfur dioxide, from the plant's stack.
"Our great-grandchildren will be affected by this," said Eunice Ohte.
In a telephone interview from the Western Environmental Law Center in Eugene, Ore., attorney Daniel Galpern said, "We are requesting that the board revisit its initial decision (to expand the landfill) in light of the fact that they were under a misunderstanding about the evidence regarding the risk of the landfill."
Galpern, representing the Sierra Club, said the board was misled by NV Energy's claim that toxic leachate from the landfill would be insignificant when the board voted 8-4 to approve the company's application.
Some information wasn't available at the time of the vote, and computer modeling of plant's existing and proposed landfill shows the amount of contamination that could be released is substantial, he wrote in a letter Wednesday to board Chairwoman Linda Strickland. Millions of gallons of leachate per year could enter groundwater, the Muddy River and eventually Lake Mead, Southern Nevada's primary drinking water supply.
NV Energy released a statement Friday saying its coal-fired Reid Gardner Generating Station "maintains a fully-compliant" landfill.
The statement from NV Energy spokeswoman Jennifer Schuricht notes that expansion of the Class III industrial waste storage area was granted last year and next week the health district staff will update the board "and detail the operating conditions and requirements to be implemented by NV Energy for this expansion."
In a letter Tuesday to the health district and board members, Galpern said a review of reports the company provided after the October vote with data plugged into a hydrologic computer model "clearly establish that substantial -- indeed, enormous -- quantities of leachate have been generated within the landfill and will continue to be generated there, and to migrate to groundwater."
"These unlawful and significant discharges may threaten vital local and regional water resources. The NV Energy-supplied information counsels you to order a full stop to development at the landfill, both present and future operations," Galpern wrote.
Coal-ash waste disposed in the landfill contains a number of harmful and toxic chemicals, according to the Sierra Club, including arsenic, selenium, lead, mercury and hexavalent chromium linked to organ disease, cancer, respiratory illness and nerve damage.
At the Oct. 28 meeting and open-house venues prior to the vote, members of the Moapa Band of Paiutes told board members and the health district's staff that the 312 Paiutes who live on the reservation have experienced a myriad of health problems that they blame on fine particulate matter from the plant and its landfill.
"You should come out and look at it on a windy day. It's killing us," Paiute Eric Lee said at a meeting in Moapa.
Others said particles sometimes come down on their homes like snowflakes.
Charles H. Norris, an expert for a geology and hydrology consulting firm in Denver, detailed the landfill's pollution potential in a 25-page report that was sent Friday to the health district board.
He found that active operations will produce 3 million to 46 million gallons per year of coal-ash leachate migration to the groundwater and the closed landfill will produce 1.2 million gallons per year of leachate that enters the groundwater during the life of a protective liner system and 1.6 million gallons per year after that.
In his report, Norris said NV Energy needs to show what impacts of the landfill expansion will be as required by Nevada law.
"Only after that is done can the board review the demonstration to determine whether the proposal will, in fact, prevent degradation of waters of the state. But, not yet. The applicant has yet to do its job," Norris wrote.
This digital document is an article from American Journal of Applied Sciences, published by Science Publications on April 1, 2009. The length of the article is 9811 words. The page length shown above is based on a typical 300-word page. The article is delivered in HTML format and is available immediately after purchase. You can view it with any web browser.
From the author: Key words: Landfill leachate, review, biological treatment, physical/chemical treatment, membrane filtration
Citation Details Title: Review on landfill leachate treatments. Author: Abdulhussain A. Abbas Publication:American Journal of Applied Sciences (Magazine/Journal) Date: April 1, 2009 Publisher: Science Publications Volume: 6 Issue: 4 Page: 672(13)
JO DAVIESS COUNTY (WIFR) -- A six-month investigation into potential water contamination leads the Illinois Attorney General to take action against a Jo Daviess County mega-dairy.
The owner of Tradition Dairy is facing five counts, related to a silage discharge that turned part of a nearby river purple. Charges include water pollution and operating without a federal permit that allows the dairy to discharge. This issue has been at the center of neighbors' fears the 5,000-cow facility will contaminate their drinking water. Tradition Dairy now has two months to respond to the state's complaint and faces up to $250,000 in fines. Construction at the site has been at a standstill since 2008.
UPDATE: Press Release from HOMES
Illinois Attorney General Files Five-Count Suit Against Megadairy Suit Requests IL Pollution Control Board to Assess Fines of Over $250,000
JO DAVIESS COUNTY (HOMES) -- On April 20, the Illinois Attorney General filed a five-count suit with the Illinois Pollution Control Board against the Traditions megadairy being built by A.J. Bos in Jo Daviess County, Illinois. This suit adds yet another hurdle that the California millionaire investor will have to clear before he can operate his 5,500-head dairy, which will endanger the pristine Apple River Canyon State Park and jeopardize dozens of family-owned farms.
The five counts address Clean Water Act violations, including water pollution, discharging without a permit, and discharging effluent into waters of the state. Each of the five counts carries a penalty of $50,000 per incident plus $10,000 per day, for a total fine of more than $250,000.
Local citizens, committed to protecting their clean air, safe well water, and rural communities, have fought this facility since the California investor requested a permit in December of 2007.
The suit also asks the court to require the megadairy to apply for a National Pollution Discharge Elimination Systems (NPDES) permit. The IEPA would administer this application process, which could require extensive studies and a public hearing in Jo Daviess County. At that hearing, the public and experts can present evidence that this facility will damage the ecology of the Apple River, threaten endangered species, pollute local streams, and negatively affect the economy of the region, including existing family-owned dairies.
“The county board voted 11-to-5 to deny this facility a permit due to pollution concerns,” said Matthew Alschuler, press agent for HOMES. “These concerns were ignored by the Department of Agriculture when they erroneously issued a construction permit. Now the residents of Jo Daviess County will finally have their voices heard by a state agency.”
Bruce Yurdin, field operations manager for the IEPA, has previously stated that their agency would require some sort of karst testing on site before issuing an NPDES permit to the megadairy. State law has specific requirements that must be followed when building waste treatment ponds over fractured karst bedrock. These laws have not been followed by this facility.
On the morning of October 1, 2010, neighbors to the megadairy were shocked that the water in the Apple River tributary, fed by the megadairy site, was dark purple. Investigators from the IEPA and US EPA arrived on scene later that day, discovered that the megadairy leachate pond was purple, and documented purple biologically active silage leachate pooled on saturated ground. They interviewed a contractor for the megadairy who admitted to applying 320,000 gallons of purple leachate to five acres of land, an application rate about 20 times the customary level. Both environmental agencies took water samples from the purple stream and the purple leachate pond. On October 8, 2010, the IEPA referred the case to the IL Attorney General for enforcement.
A copy of the complaint can be downloaded from the IPCB site:
A press release from the IL Attorney General can be read at:
For more information about HOMES and to help support our cause, visit:
HOMES (Helping Others Maintain Environmental Standards) is a 501(c)(3) tax exempt, pro-agriculture group of farmers and citizens dedicated to protecting family farms, rural communities, human health, and the environment by promoting sustainable agriculture and conserving our natural resources.
Posted by: Same Ol' Song & Dance Location: Illinois on Apr 21, 2011 at 06:36 AM Sam ol song and dance slap on the wrist !
It all started with a mother wanting to protect her child.
Mary Lou Sharon noticed late one night as she rocked her baby girl to sleep, that dump trucks were going up and down her road on Lewis Street towards the Laurel Park landfill. The year was 1967.
Having recently heard a news report on illegal dumping in another town, she wondered if this could be the case right here in Naugatuck.
Sharon reached out to her neighbors who told stories of fires, strong chemical odors and water contamination.
Sharon’s efforts in Naugatuck were recognized Thursday when she was honored as Earth Day Mayor for the Day. A ceremony was held at Town Hall, commemorating all she has done environmentally throughout the borough.
In the Superfund 25th Anniversary Report — a federal program focused on cleaning up the nation’s hazardous waste sites — she stated: “While I was surveying the neighbors, I found many women experienced miscarriages, and cancer in many families. Young women died early in life because they used to play in the stream that was polluted. A woman bathed in benzene-contaminated water and ended up with eye tumors. Farmers’ chickens and ducks also died from the stream.”
Shocked to find the administration at the time was unresponsive to her fears and those of her neighbors, this soft-spoken, non-confrontational woman decided she would lead the charge to find the truth and most importantly, the solution.
“I started to investigate, ask questions, talk to neighbors, ask my husband questions, ask residents who worked in town,” Sharon said. “And when I heard about the trucks carrying barrels escorted and transported to the landfill and the stories about those barrels being pushed into pits and the kids watching them disintegrate, then I saw pictures of homes at the top, enveloped in smoke from the Laurel Park landfill.”
What she uncovered was that not only were chemicals being dumped in the landfill but also that they had contaminated the aquifers that feed the groundwater supply.
The neighborhood near the landfill was experiencing noxious odors from the chemicals and the resulting fires. Orange leachate oozed into backyards. A nearby brook, which flowed beneath the landfill, was heavily polluted with high levels of toxic chemicals and landfill leachate, which traveled downhill through the area of Andrew Avenue School.
When Mayor Terry Buckmiller was elected, he promptly met with the neighbors and for the first time, they had an advocate in the mayor’s office.
“This began my journey, which took 16 years from the bottom of the hill to reach the top,” she said.
In 1981, Sharon formed The Pollution Extermination Group (PEG) and by 1983 PEG was incorporated with three other members. With Sharon at the helm, PEG secured legal representation and lobbied in Washington for the re-authorization of Superfund.
They achieved their objectives, to close Laurel Park Landfill and to secure potable water for the approximately 50 residents within the ¼-mile radius of the site.
“The Connecticut Fund for the Environment playes a big part in helping us organize and become an intervening party in the state procedures,” Sharon said.
On a global level, in 1991, Sharon was one of 14 women in North America invited to speak at the Global Assembly of Women and the Environment located in Miami, Fla. Her efforts to contain contaminates at Laurel Park landfill are published in the French daily publication L’Express International.
In this region and statewide, she has been involved with a long list of conferences and task forces as well as the Northeast Earth Day Regional Organizer Network (NEDRON) and The Center for Health, Environment and Justice headed by Lois Gibbs who exposed the fact that a company in Niagra Falls, N.Y., buried 21,000 tons of toxic waste under the Love Canal neighborhood.
Laurel Park Landfill together with Sharon’s efforts has been the subject of several television documentaries and publications, including Northwest Hills, Amicus Journal and Connecticut Magazine.
In Naugatuck, she has been co-chair of Earth Day Activities, President of Pollution Extermination Group, Inc (PEG) and President of Church Woman United Community advisory panel.
For many, Sharon has been a guidepost by which they (the members of those groups) aspire to.
Len Yannelli, outreach director of the Committee for a Cultural/Environmental Center – Gunntown Road, recalls the first Naugatuck Town Meeting he attended in 1981. He stated that Sharon was constantly interrupted and her every word jeered at by an organized group in the audience.
“I was amazed at her steadfastness, calm, informed presentation and courage,” Yanelli said.
Kevin Zak, of the Naugatuck River Revival Group, said the following: “Every thing needs to start somewhere. Mary Lou started it here in our hometown. She stirred the pot and opened the door not unlike Rosa Parks. I stepped through the door she and others left open. Her story and persistence is inspirational. When we are long past, she will be remembered. I hope the youth of this town understand and are inspired by her past actions.”
21 April 2011 Last updated at 13:05 Some 22 acres of the 400-acre park will be affected Part of Wrexham's largest country park will have to close after pollutants were found leaking from a former landfill site.
It makes up about 5% of Alyn Waters Country Park and was capped in 2001 but there is now evidence of leaching.
Wrexham council has warned residents the work could take two to three years to complete but said there is no risk to public or wildlife.
The eventual re-capping could cost up to £10m.
But if left, the council fears contamination of the River Alyn.
Tests show the cap is not working properly and rainwater is entering the site, producing higher than expected leachate levels.
The council said the leachate is removed regularly, but there is evidence it has "overtopped" into surrounding land at least once.
Continue reading the main story
We appreciate that this news may cause concern to those living close to the park and regular visitors”
End Quote Sarah Evans Wrexham council Of several options presented to the local authority's executive board, it decided the only "long-term sustainable solution" was to re-cap the site, which could cost between £1m-£10m.
Work will involve re-shaping the site to shed water more effectively, and installing a "geosynthetic capping layer over the existing clay".
The site - about 22 of approximately 400 acres - will be closed to the public, but the remainder will stay open.
Wrexham council said residents nearby had been informed by letter and liaison meetings will be held.
Sarah Evans, principal environment protection manager, said: "We appreciate that this news may cause concern to those living close to the park and regular visitors.
"We have undertaken to keep them informed and up to date as work progresses.
"We will also work closely with colleagues in the environment department and external advisors to safeguard the ecology of the area and to ensure the site is returned to its former state."
A contractor is now being sought. View the original article here
The GHMC has been dumping about 3,800 metric tonnes (MTs) of garbage daily in the 750-acre dump yard located about 35 kms from the city for the past few years.
Many villages like Haridaspally, Dammaiguda, Nagaram, which are located close to Jawaharnagar dump yard, have been facing ground water pollution due to continuous dumping over the years.
A few months ago, residents of Cheryala village in Keesara mandal had complained to Lokayukta that the lake in their village `Pedda Chervu' was getting polluted due to the leachate of Jawaharnagar.
Officials said Pedda Chervu is located in the downstream of Malkapur tank, which is close to Jawaharnagar. As leachate of Jawaharnagar was polluting Malkapur tank, water flowing into Pedda Chervu is also getting polluted.
After people complained of water pollution, the GHMC officials, a couple of months ago, had stopped inflows into Pedda Chervu by forming an earthen bund below the Jawaharnagar dump yard to ensure that the leachate does not enter the Malkapur tank.
Since the Pedda Chervu water had already got polluted, the Lokayukta has directed the GHMC to drain out water from the lake. Now, this has become a herculean task for the corporation officials as the tank is under the control of the minor irrigation department. GHMC officials approached the irrigation officials, who in turn sought instructions from the Ranga Reddy district collector.
The district collector did not give permission reportedly due to resentment from other villagers of Rampally, Kundapally and Godumpally, who are down streams of Pedda Chervu. The villagers expressed fear that the drained out lake water from Pedda Chervu might enter their lakes and tanks.
The water pollution in and around Jawaharnagar triggered huge protests three years ago. Villagers of Haridaspally and other villages had staged a dharna and even stopped garbage vehicles proceeding to Jawaharnagar as the dumping yard was not only causing ground water pollution but also roads were getting damaged due to heavy traffic. The GHMC assured them of laying roads, drinking water supply and street lights and other facilities.
While the roads and other facilities were provided, the GHMC recently paid about Rs 2.45 crore to the Hyderabad Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board to supply piped water to the villages of Dammaiguda, Nagaram, Haridaspally, Ahmedguda and Cheriyal apart from Jawaharnagar.
When contacted, GHMC executive engineer D Sudhakar said they have inspected the area on the directions of the Lokayukta and were taking necessary steps for preventing water pollution.
WHILE Malaysians are busy worrying about whether radiation-contaminated seawater surrounding Japan's nuclear disaster zone is going to wash onto Malaysian shores, or whether radiation-contaminated food from Japan is going to get past Customs inspections and be consumed by unsuspecting foodies, the fact is, the health of Malaysians have long been at risk of contamination by poisons contributed by leachate from our own landfills.
The poisons, including heavy metals like mercury, leach into groundwater and flow into our rivers, contaminating riverwater and the eco-system that depends on it. If the leach goes undetected, the poisons will flow into our body through the water, fish and shellfish that we consume.
Who is responsible for this insidious poisoning of the people? We are.
Every person who has ever thrown a dry cell battery (like the ones used in torchlights and television remote controls), a fluorescent tube, handphone batteries and other hazardous e-waste like computers, televisions and printers into their household dustbin has contributed to this potential poisoning of the people. Broken or crushed fluorescent tubes leak out mercury gas; dry cells leak out heavy metals. This e-waste, which is scheduled waste, cannot be thrown into an ordinary dustbin, cannot be picked up by an ordinary rubbish-collection lorry, and should not end up on a normal rubbish heap at a normal landfill which is not equipped to deal with leachate.
And yet, every day, more than 42 tonnes of such hazardous e-waste is thrown out together with ordinary household waste.
It is not enough for consumers to know their rights; they must also take responsibility for what they consume, and this includes how they dispose of what they have consumed. But it is one thing to educate the consumer about separating their rubbish; it is another thing altogether to make sure that the rubbish stays separated. Besides building more sanitary landfills with leachate treatment facilities, the government needs to set laws which require e-waste to be compulsorily recycled.
In June 1998, the Japanese government enacted a Home Appliance Recycling Law, in which all white goods were required to be cannibalised and their components recycled. The responsibility for this is borne by the consumer, who pays a compulsory up-front collection charge at the time of purchase, and the manufacturer, who must collect the used product later in the future and recycle it. No government subsidy is involved, as the role of the government is to provide direction to the public to take responsibility for their consumer habits.
Since Malaysia intends to make separation of rubbish at the source for household goods compulsory in 2013, it is only fair that this should be followed through with a plan for how to keep this waste separate.
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.
Above video is not associated with the text. However, we thought you may find it of interest.
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 consultants 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.
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.
The above video is not associated with the article text. However, we thought our readers might also be interested in this video.
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.
Landfill Leachate and landfill gas are the main landfill hazards which waste disposal to land imposes the environment. We will discuss both in this article. Landfill leachate is the name given to water that has passed through solid waste and contains organic and mineral contaminants. Therefore this effluent must be treated before discharge to the environment. Landfill leachate is a major concern for landfill sites located in close proximity to agricultural land, waterways and the public domain. The leachate and runoff from the site is directed to, and stored in, on-site leachate ponds. Landfill leachate is a notoriously complex substance to deal with, primarily because of its ever-changing composition. In recent years, biological treatment in Sequencing Batch Reactors (SBRs), and engineered wetland systems have proven that they can play a valuable role in leachate treatment.
The above video is not associated with the text article.
Landfill leachate is harmful for the environment if it escapes from landfills, and can even be highly toxic due to its high strength of contamination.
Generally, PAC addition after biological treatment and settlement can be used for leachate treatment, and can sometimes have a pronounced effect on organic carbon removal (BOD and COD). PAC alone is not adequate as the ammoniacal nitrogen in leachate is not removed by PAC addition.
In hot arid climates, the removal of just the organic content from a highly polluted drainage (such as landfill leachate) may not be sufficient for treatment where discharge is made to land or into a watercourse. This is because of the high concentrations of salts and other inorganic pollutants from the leachate into the natural water cycle, even at low concentrations, may lead to bio-accumulation. That is there may not be enough winter rainfall to flush the summer salt build-up away before the next spring. Such a situation would amount to a growing potential of environmental pollution in the resultant ecosystems which receive the discharge of treated leachate.
In many wetter areas however, biological leachate treatment will be perfectly adequate, and is a much lower cost option and generally uses far less energy than the more sophisticated systems used where saline build-up is a concern.
However, extracting leachate from landfills will be essential to control leachate levels and many have experienced difficulties in doing that. The fact is that landfill leachate is pretty tough to pump.". Electric centrifugal pumps continue to manage the liquids at many landfills, and do very well to keep the methane production at peak volume to realize the site's projected energy goals.
However, they do present certain concerns with regard to their design ATEX compliance and the possibility of landfill gas explosions , and therefore most large landfill operators have moved to pneumatic leachate extraction pumping systems. These can also be very readily fitted within retro-drilled borehole wells, as combined leachate extraction and gas extraction wells.
Every landfill is an engineering project with an engineered leachate management system. Any landfill liner is part of the system. The system should be designed to accommodate a range of seepage rates from very low (the best containment that can be achieved) to high (a controlled form of dilute and attenuate) depending on the degree of environmental protection needed at that site.
Many guidance documents or statutory assessment methods use absolute terms such as "total containment", "prevention of leachate and landfill gas migration", or "impermeable". These terms can lead to the erroneous belief that such concepts are achievable, and that failure to do so is indicative of poor materials or workmanship.
Landfill Problems - A Landfill Site Anatomy - kewego http://landfill-site.com/html/landfills__environmental_probl.php Landfill problems. Landfill lining requirements, capping and landfill restoration described. Protect the environment and groundwater.
Consideration of material properties demonstrates that, as all materials have a finite permeability, some finite seepage is inevitable.
For example, the frequently quoted requirements for one metre of clay with a maximum permeability of 10-9 m/s and a maximum leachate head of 1 metre implies, using Darcy's Law, a seepage rate of 1.7 m^/d/ha, and yet it is commonly referred to as the provision of "total containment".
Actual flow rates are affected by a range of ameliorating and aggregating factors. Calculation of actual seepage rates is complex, and should be carried out using risk assessment methodology carried out to a recognized methodology.
For gases, viscosity and diffusion characteristics must be taken into account. In general, mineral liners on their own are not usually effective barriers against gas migration, though they can be useful components of a multi-barrier system.
Measurements of hydraulic conductivity are of little relevance in respect to gas, as gas is able to pass through a barrier at a rate several orders of magnitude greater than that which may be measured for water.
All materials will allow the passage of liquids to an extent determined by their permeability. Risk assessment methodology will quantify the probability distribution for a derived seepage rate for a given liner/landfill situation.
This should be used either to assess the probable impact on the receiving source, or to determine the performance specification for the liner and landfill operational methods. In this way, an appropriate liner specification can be derived, incorporating a suitable safety margin.
Excessive over-engineering should be avoided, as this can itself may be considered to contravene the principles of sustainable development.
The statement we have made regarding the fact that flow through landfill containment systems will never be absolutely zero and will be a quantifiable small amount, cannot be refuted. It is a rigorously scientific approach to adopt this principle.
However, the concept of the fact that a seepage through a liner is acceptable has been resisted by some, and in particular can appear to be in conflict with the EC Groundwater Directive.
However, in certain circumstances, the discharge into the unsaturated zone of leachates containing List II substances (as defined by the EC Groundwater Directive) is permissible, provided that prior investigation has shown that this will be satisfactory and not significantly impact upon the environment.
Around the globe the primary concern will be to ensure the protection of groundwater, so for example in the EU landfill acceptability is classified by type within zones of travel time to a water source, and within resource protection areas.
Landfills are accepted as suitable for development when subject to adequate risk assessed engineered containment and operational safeguards.
Author Steve Evans has been writing about landfill daily cover and many other aspects of practical waste and secondary resource management since 2006. As you have been reading this article, there is a fair chance that you may enjoy his blog. We recommend a visit now!
Did you know that roughly 57 percent of all trash winds up in the over 7500 US landfills yearly according to the US EPA? Do you realize that trash production has nearly tripled since 1960? We certainly do live in a society that has adopted a disposable mentality! How many times have you heard somebody say, "Just go buy a new one?" When what they have could be repaired or reconditioned.
The danger to everyone on planet earth with this disposable mentality of ours is that all of our landfills emit harmful leachate gases that can become comingled with our water supply. Many older landfills do not have liners, leachate collection systems or groundwater monitoring systems. These dangerous gases are created when weather, humidity and non organic materials (plastics, phytochemicals) are compressed and aged together. (www.ejnet.org/rachel/rhwn231.htm) Also landfill land is not easily reclaimable for other uses due to the overcontamination of pollutants. If we keep needing to create more landfills for our trash, then soon we will be struggling for good natural land to build on or use for open spaces.
How can you help to change this dangerous and concerning consumer course? You can purchase organic, sustainable and renewable consumer goods. Goods made from organic or sustainable materials are easily recyclable or composted and does not go "toxic" when breaking down. A good example is 100% organic cotton clothing. It makes good logic that since the clothing is made from only naturally occurring plants that the cloth will easily return to the earth in a positive manner. Each stage of this product's life cycle is sustainable and minimizes negative impact on the earth and environment.
What assurance do you have that a product is "green", "organic" or "earth friendly"? Luckily there are standards in place and certain labeling that you can look for. Here is website that explains each type of labeling now available http://mts.sustainableproducts.com/standards.htm . Remember, each time you buy something you vote with your purchase! If we all choose to buy more sustainable products we can reduce pollution, the landfill problem and create a healthier, more productive living environment!
Khrom Chen Virtual Mall is a unique online shopping center that carries a variety of green, organic, sustainable, earth friendly and eco friendly products. We also carry a variety of products that support a healthy lifestyle, and personal enrichment products.
Visit the Green Monk Blog for more Environmental Articles and Consumer Recalls at [http://www.khromchen.com/kchblog.html] Visit Khrom Chen Organic Mall to shop for green, oraganic, eco & earth friendly products at [http://www.khromchen.com] We have weekly Specials, Coupons & Discounts on everything you need.
Leachate can be any water that once it has drained through a medium takes up chemicals and solid materials during its passage. The term leachate is most often used in connection with landfills. Landfill leachate is contaminated 'dirty' water that is produced when rainwater comes into contact with waste materials on the area of the landfill. It contains a large number of different contaminants, probably the most significant of which is ammonia.
The second most common type of leachate encountered is the black odorous run-off from manure heaps and from some composting facilities.
If leachate is allowed to leak from a landfill it will usually cause pollution both locally around the waste, and it may form a plume of contamination within groundwaters it enters and a plume of groundwater pollution may move away from the landfill over time to contaminate wells and any drinking water taken from them.
Leachate forms from both the combination of liquids that are dumped in a tip or landfill, and liquids that form through decomposition of wastes, as precipitation filters through the wastes. It is a liquid which is mostly organically contaminated but which will also contain low levels of most of the liquids disposed of in the landfill from which it emanates.
Sometimes leachate can be produced by a landfill, which is sealed by a low permeability capping layer. That is normally the result of a rise in pressure on the landfill when additional loads are placed on the landfill forcing compression of the structure or the presence of excess water.
Leachate is produced by the percolation of precipitation through a landfill (from rainfall and snowmelt) once it penetrates the landfill's daily, intermediate, or final cover. However, the quantity that penetrates a well vegetated cover is lower than many expect, due to the evaporation from the surface, which will include the transpiration from the leaves of he foliage on he surface.
As the water passes vertically downward through the waste mass, it comes into contact with the waste, picking up chemical contaminants and biological impurities as it goes, and the deeper the waste he stronger it gets. It also gets stronger if it stands from a long while in the waste which is not highly surprising.
There are two main types of leachate produced in landfills which contain biological municipal solid waste (MSW). These are known as acetogenic leachate and methanogenic leachate. The methanogenic type is often black in color always smelly and may smell of bad eggs. Methanogenic only has only a slight smell and is brown or golden colored.
Acetogenic leachate is the young leachate which is produced in a landfill first. It has a very high Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD) which can be as high as hundreds of thousands of milligrams per litre for short periods, soon after the cells of he organic waste break open or "lyse" and the complex compounds which make up live cell tissue drain out of the cells.
The demand for oxygen in a modern quite rapidly filled landfill, is so intense that within a few months of deposition a new cell of waste will lack oxygen within the airspaces. Oxygen will be present in the waste which is then said to be in an anoxic condition.
Over time the original oxygen in the waste and in the leachate becomes depleted as biological fermentation proceeds, and at some point ancient bacteria which have always been present in airless bogs and swamps and lie dormant in our environment multiply and take over the reaction within he waste. These are known as methanogenic bacteria. Why are they called that? Well, it is simple really! They produce the gas known as methane!
All that brings me around to the point where I can now define methanogenic leachate. Yes. You have guessed it. Methanogenic leachate is the leachate that is produce by a methane producing anaerobic landfill. By the time it has become methanogenic however, the process of decomposition by fermentation has reduced the COD to quite possibly 1/100 th of its maximum value, or even 1/1000 th.
However, the leachate is hardly any less toxic to aquatic life, because the ammonia present in dissolved and gaseous forms remains high, and thus as we stated earlier is one of the most important contaminants in leachate.
That is the story of leachate from young (acetogenic) to old (methanogenic).
Visit Steve Last's web site for Part 2 of this article at The Leachate Web Site. he is an expert on leachate treatment and has been designing and building leachate treatment plants for more than 20 years.
Leachate is the liquid produced when water percolates through any permeable material. Silage leachate is a form of leachate which is a serious environmental problem, however, when people refer to leachate they are usually talking about the contaminated water that is produced by water percolating through waste.
Leachate is produced when water filters downward through a landfill, and as it does so it picks up dissolved materials from the decomposing wastes. Depending on characteristics of the landfill and the wastes it contains, the leachate may vary from being relatively harmless or extremely toxic.
Landfills with low permeability daily cover, in wet and high rainfall climates with high slopes (less than 20 to 1) are particularly susceptible. Leachate seeps also are possible if operators use recirculation to return concentrates from, for example, RO systems and we have known seeps to be particularly persistent where systems are inadvertently placed over well-compacted, former haul roads.
Landfill leachate can also be defined as liquid that leaks from a landfill and enters the environment. This liquid may either exist in the landfill as deposited, or it may be created after rainwater mixes with the chemical waste in in a landfill.
Landfill leachate quality varies as a function of many factors including waste type, waste depth, time, weather, and landfill operations.
Designed to hold our garbage and to prevent it from contaminating our soil and our drinking water, the modern landfill has become a highly technical and complex structure. Contrary to what many might think, a landfill is not just a pile of garbage. Because these landfills are designed not to let the leachate escape and pollute the surrounding ground the landfills hold the leachate for a long while before it can descend through the waste and be removed from the bottom. This means that the modern landfill produces some of the strongest and most contaminated leachate waters ever produced anywhere.
Treatment of this polluted water is a complex task due to its nature. A typical leachate is highly contaminated with ammonia, organic contaminants, halogenated hydrocarbons and some heavy metals (although this can be overstated in leachate from modern well controlled landfills). Also, leachates commonly hold high concentrations of inorganic salts.
Treatment lagoons and leachate ponds are a method of leachate management, but they are usually ineffective fall all but the freshest and weakest landfill leachates.
In dry climates and arid areas, removal of the organic content from a highly polluted drainage (such as landfill leachate) is not sufficient. This is because of introducing the salts and other inorganic pollutants from the leachate into the natural water cycle, even at minimal concentrations, can lead to bio-accumulation (a growing potential of environmental pollution) in the resultant ecosystems which receive the discharge of treated leachate.
Additionally, although the biodegradability of leachate organic compounds declines with time, complex organic compounds, such as humic substances and manufactured chemical compounds, remain in solution.
Biological treatment is the most favourable procedure that should be used for leachate treatment, and biological treatment should also be used in those cases when chemical/physical treatment is also required. Biological leachate treatment is a relatively low cost process in which organics are degraded mainly to carbon dioxide, water, and biomass.
All those substances that are been eliminated using a pre-treatment of biological degradation no longer have to be treated by means of the much higher cost chemical/physical procedures available.
As the landfill age increases the treatment of the leachate it produces will mainly focus on the nitrification of ammonia. Biological denitrification can then be achieved subsequently when an external organic substrate is added to the leachate.
It is important to stress that the design criteria for sewage treatment plants cannot be used for this polluted water. For the design and operation of biological leachate treatment plants specific points have to be respected and a leachate treatment process expert is essential. For many adopting the advice of sewage treatment experts for leachate-treatment has resulted in inappropriate process designs, and wasted money, time and effort.
For leading world class expertise in leachate treatment visit the top leachate web site. These guys have built the biggest and most complex biological leachate treatment plants in the world to treat the strongest and most difficult to treat leachates found anywhere.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
