High water levels hinder leachate pipeline construction project in Caribou area

CARIBOU, Maine — High water levels of the Little Madawaska River have hindered two pipeline construction projects, both literally a stone’s throw from completion.
Standing on the bank off Grimes Mill Road on Sept. 9, Mark Draper watched as water rushed downstream at 917 cubic feet per second — more than 800 cubic feet per second higher than normal based on a U.S. Geological Survey average for the last three years.
“Last year at this time you could walk across this river and not get your feet wet,” said Draper, solid waste director of the Tri-Community Landfill.
Tri-Community Landfill is 175 feet from completing a 2.3-mile pipeline project to connect the landfill to the Caribou Utilities District, where the landfill’s leachate — water that has come into contact with garbage — will be treated.
Until the pipeline is completed, Tri-Community employees will continue hauling the leachate to the CUD one 6,300-gallon truckload at a time.
As Draper explained, CUD didn’t have the capacity to accept Tri-Community’s leachate when the landfill was first built, and there wasn’t a feasible way to pipe the leachate to Fort Fairfield for treatment.
Now that Caribou has the capacity for the leachate, the pipeline will save Tri-Community employees roughly 1,000 trips a year hauling approximately 6 million gallons of leachate.
But nature seemed to have other plans for the project as record-setting precipitation this summer has caused the Little Madawaska River to swell and rage along. Workers with Soderberg Construction considered building a cofferdam to push river water to one side in order to lay two 6-inch pipes across the riverbed — one pipe for daily operations and the other as a backup. But the high, rushing water dampened that plan.
Instead, officials with Tri-Community and Soderberg opted to go with directional drilling under the river — essentially drilling down from one bank, under the river, and over to the opposite bank.
Subcontractors with Enterprise Trenchless Technologies Inc. of Lisbon Falls were on-site Tuesday afternoon for the directional drilling under the river, which will allow the two ends of the pipeline finally to meet after a season of opposing each other from the banks of the Little Madawaska. The project is likely to be completed this week.
Expediting the weather-delayed project by drilling and essentially bypassing the river will cost an estimated $18,000. That cost will be split between the contractor and Tri-Community. The total projected cost of the leachate pipeline project is approximately $1.7 million, which includes engineering, easements for right of way, environmental permits and construction.
What Draper found most frustrating was that the rain not only delayed the project but also added to the amount of leachate that needed to be treated.
But Tri-Community Landfill isn’t the only entity that has been trying in vain to cross the Little Madawaska River this summer; just downstream, the Greater Limestone Water and Sewer District also is just shy of completing a pipeline project. That district is trying to connect to an existing Caribou Utilities District pipeline so its treated waste can reach the Aroostook River.
Limestone Water and Sewer Director Jim Leighton explained that directional drilling isn’t an option for that project because the pipe the district plans to run under the river has a diameter of 21 inches.
Like the Tri-Community project, efforts to build a cofferdam earlier this summer were a wash.
“So now we’re doing the waiting game,” Leighton said.
Since Sept. 6 and 7, when the river was rushing at more than 2,500 cubic feet per second — bearing in mind a gallon of water weighs just more than 8 pounds — the water level has been dropping steadily. At the beginning of this week, the river was “down” to 374 cubic feet per second. Waiting out the weather isn’t a problem for LWSC, as a few weeks’ delay won’t change the project’s cost.
Leighton is confident that the project will find a window this fall.
“This [pipeline under the river] will connect us to the Aroostook River, then it’s just a matter of turning a couple of valves and we’ll be able to start utilizing the pipeline,” Leighton said.
Leighton also pre-emptively clarified that while the Greater Limestone Water and Sewer District is connecting its pipeline with that of the Caribou Utilities District in order to reach the Aroostook River, all of Limestone’s wastewater still will be treated in Limestone — it’s not being transported to Caribou. Rather, LWSD is using the same diffuser pipe as CUD to discharge into the Aroostook River.
View the original article here

Managing the legacy of landfill - Waste Management World

Eastern Daily Press - September 24, 2011

The vast mountains of decaying rubbish buried beneath Norfolk's landscape may be hidden from view - but their potential environmental consequences are not so easily masked. Waste dumped by generations of families and businesses is still decomposing, oozing toxic chemicals and greenhouse gases which could threaten their natural surroundings.

But the challenge of managing our landfill legacy is being met through an innovative engineering effort, while policy-makers continue battling to find more sustainable ways to dispose of the refuse left by a growing population.

Norfolk County Council is responsible for more than 150 closed landfills, of which six are the larger "permitted" sites which were still operating by the time new environmental regulations came into force in the 1990s. Teams of technicians work to a double remit: to monitor and minimise the ecological impact of gas and leachate generated by so much buried waste, and to find ways to maximise income from its useful by-product - methane.

Turning the greenhouse gas into energy at four sites is currently worth about £280,000 per year to the county council, 22pc of the total costs for managing the authority's closed landfills.

Meanwhile, water percolates through rotting rubbish, collecting chemical contaminants as it goes, and the resulting leachate must be routinely monitored, abstracted and sent away for treatment. In all, keeping permitted sites in compliance with environmental regulations costs taxpayers about £1.4m per year.

Bill Borrett, Norfolk's cabinet member for environment and waste, said: "I think people have got to understand more about landfill, because once you understand the amount it costs, the environmental hazards and the amount of space it takes up, people become more aware of the legacy of their waste and the importance of recycling.

"It is not simply put into a hole and forgotten about - there is years of work in maintaining the land after that." The site at Mayton Wood, near Coltishall, accepted 1.5m tonnes of commercial, industrial and household waste between 1971 and 2003. The waste is grouped into huge domed "cells" contained by a liner and capping system.

The base of the landfill consists of a clay base, followed by a waterproof plastic membrane which is protected by a shingle or sand drainage layer above it. At the top, a similar set of layers encase the waste - along with the gas and liquids - in an impermeable bowl, with the angled sides draining any leachate to a collection sump at the bottom. Meanwhile, rainwater is prevented from getting into the landfill, and is instead channelled to the perimeter across the domed surface.

Hydrogeologist Tim Wilkins regularly samples, monitors and controls leachate levels with the help of a computerised system of wells and pumps. "Leachate is what you get when water percolates through the waste and picks up contaminants," he said. "Some of it comes out looking like coffee and smells quite nasty. The main constituent is ammoniacal nitrogen, and it can be quite toxic to the aquatic environment.

"We have got 11 wells on this site and each has a pump and a level sensor which sense the level of the liquid. The pumps are operated automatically when the leachate reaches a level of one metre above the base layer. "All the permitted sites are now within compliance, but when we took them over (in 2008) they generally had 14-15 metres of leachate. They were all saturated, which meant there was more chance of the leachate escaping."

About 70 gas wells are also sunk into the Mayton Wood waste to harness landfill emissions which are typically 45pc methane, 25pc carbon dioxide and the remainder mostly nitrogen. The gas is drawn into perforated pipes which reach 10 to 16m underground to the base of the cell, and are connected through a network of sealed pipes above ground to a powerful fan at the on-site energy plant. The generator draws in 450 cubic metres of gas per hour and converts it to electricity which is sold on to the National Grid, with the profits shared by the council and the private plant operator.

Des Holmes, the council's landfill gas project officer, said: "We're talking about the equivalent of 45 double-decker buses full of gas
being sucked out of the ground every hour. The whole site is under negative suction. "The machinery is basically like a large diesel engine that has been converted to run on landfill gas.

It produces 600kW/h, enough for 500 homes, and it is constant. The only time it stops is when it breaks down, but it can keep going at that rate 24 hours a day, seven days a week. "The gas will diminish over the years, but I reckon we have got about 15 years until it stops becoming economic to produce electricity here." Gas production at closed landfills is estimated to reduce by 10pc each year as the waste degrades, prompting efforts to find more innovative ways of squeezing every last pound out of the resource. The council's strategic waste manager Paul Borrett said there was a "fine balance" between preventing rainwater seeping into the site, and keeping the waste damp enough to maintain chemical reactions.

"The amount of rain water that collects on the site is more than we can cope with, but we want the waste to stay wet so it continues to produce gas," he said. "In trying to reduce the 'tail' of the gas production, we are looking into recycling some of the leachate we have collected back through the waste. Once it gets saturated or if it dried up, we have got no gas production and no income - so it is a fine balance." The generating plant at Mayton Wood also contains a gas flare, to safely burn off any potentially dangerous pressure build-ups of methane, which is estimated to be 21 times more dangerous as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide.

Work on the landfill is continuous as the waste compacts, changing the shape of the cap and the effectiveness of the wells. But Paul Borrett said although it could take several decades for landfills to settle, there were plenty of examples of where they had been replanted as woodland, public amenities or even a pitch and putt course.

"A lot of people's view of landfill is a big pit where people throw rubbish away - an eyesore," he said. "But we have moved on from that. We manage our landfills here in Norfolk and you can absolutely get to the point where they can be turned into something that's more useable - but we do have ongoing respon-sibilities and liabilities."

Copyright 2011 Archant Regional Limited All Rights Reserved

View the original article here

Sunny Farms to continue handling leachate - Tiffin Advertiser Tribune

FOSTORIA - Council took a step in helping the environment by having a first reading on a resolution dealing with landfill leachate.

Council heard Sunny Farms landfill creates "leachate", a liquid which flows through or drains from a landfill, but needed a place to continue having it treated instead of releasing it to the environment.

It was noted the city has been able to accept the landfill leachate for treatment in return for having the landfill accept the city's treated sewage sludge.

The resolution is to authorize safety-service Director James Schreck to accomplish a formal agreement to continue with the treatment process.

Mayor John Davoli noted the importance of removing items which could hold water and become a breeding ground for mosquitoes. He said the risk of having mosquitoes hatch in catch basins has been countered with a chemical that slowly releases to keep mosquito larvae from hatching. The city also is spraying for mosquitoes at night.

Police Chief John McGuire announced the receipt of a $3,900 grant from Ohio Department of Youth Services for holding youth offenders at the city jail. He said the youths must be monitored and kept away from adult prisoners.

In other news, council:

Approved a resolution authorizing the mayor to submit an application to Ohio Public Works Commission State Capital Improvement and Local Improvement Programs for funding to replace a water line on Spruce Street.

Approved an ordinance to supplement permanent appropriations to replace police equipment damaged due to sewer back up.

Heard a second reading on an ordinance amendment which is to deal with parking and storage of commercial residential refuse vehicles.

Heard a request for executive session to occur at the next council meeting for discussion of personnel.

View the original article here

Ultrafiltration and Reverse Osmosis for Landfill Leachate Treatment - Environmental Expert

Lanchester Landfill serves Eastern Lancaster County and Western Chester County in PA for disposal of household and construction waste. The facility produces around 10,000 gals per day of  leachate.

The Problem

The facility ran a single basin sequential batch reactor (SBR) and a filter press to dewater the solids for many years, but found that they first, could not sustain a good biomass, and second, in winter could not nitrify the ammonia. The facility therefore could not reliably sustain the average monthly discharge requirements:

Evaluation

The purpose of the new system is was meet the discharge requirements consistently. Ultrafiltration and Reverse Osmosis technology was selected since this offers the best performance possible in the smallest footprint with a low capital cost.
The Solution

The existing SBR basin was converted to an equalization basin, and Dynatec provided and installed a prefilter to remove larger solids, an ultrafiltration system to remove fine colloidal solids and oils, a reverse osmosis system to remove TDS, and ammonia and the other dissolved components of concern.

Several tanks already in place were utilized as process and buffer tanks between the various treatment stages.

Final ph control and chlorination was also provided.

The Process

The leachate is equalized in an equalization basin. A filter removes large solids before it enters the UF process.The leachate is processed with ultrafiltration to remove particles and oils.The UF permeate is processed with Reverse Osmosis to remove dissolved materials.

Operation

The system has operated successfully for over five years, allowing the plant to meet its discharge permit on all parameters. The influent and effluent data are provided below.

Conclusion

Dynatec Systems has built on its water treatment experience that began in the 1970's using membranes with rugged industrial reliability to produce UF and RO systems wrapped in a compact package. This made Dynatec the right choice for this project. The successful implementation of this system allows this landfill to continue to discharge to the local POTW and for use for dust control on the facility’s roads.

View the original article here

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

BERITAJAKARTA.COM — 10/10/2011 8:37:31 PM Jakarta Provincial Government ensures waste water or  leachate which comes from Bantar Gebang Integrated Trash Management (TPST), Bekasi has passed management process so that waste water does not pollute the environment. Besides, leachate management process in Bantar Gebang TPST is equipped with four Water Waste Management Installation (IPAS) which has been built in the period of 1989 until 1999.
Eko Bharuna as Head of Jakarta Cleanliness Department stated that moreover, there is allegation if water pollutions is occurred in Jambe River, Bekasi which caused by leachate from Bantar Gebang TPST, and it is not true.
“All this time we continue to manage it through four IPASs so that producing good waste and not dangerous,” he expressed at Jakarta City Hall, Monday (10/10).
Therefore, his party guarantees if waste water management has been handled properly. The technology of waste water management in Bantar Gebang TPST is the best technology in Indonesia.
Leachate management in four IPASs has also met waste quality for industry activity in accordance with Environment Minister Decision No. Kep-51/MENLH/10/1995. It is used because there are no specific rules which set waste water quality in Indonesia.Besides that, Bantar Gebang has also managed waste methane gas into electricity and its management able to reduce greenhouse gas effect. Moreover, the process of sorting, composting, and recycling are also conducted in Bantar Gebang TPST.
Now, there are three hangars of compost management with 300 tons per day capacity.Douglas Manurung as Bantar Gebang TPST Managing Director stated that his party continuously conducts laboratory test towards waste water which produced by Bantar Gebang TPST routinely.
“Waste water is managed physically, chemically, and biologically. Thus it has neutral and not dangerous in environment,” he expressed. He explained that in Bantar Gebang TPST, there four IPASs which built in 1989 (IPAS I), 1996 (IPAS II and III), and 1998/1999 (IPAS IV).
Those four IPASs are be able to manage 7,115 cubic meters of waste water per day by producing maximum leachate during rainy season which is Rp 2,856 cubic meters.Besides, there are three disposal waste locations (TPA) around Bantar Gebang. They are Bantar Gebang TPST belongs to Jakarta Provincial Government, Sumur Batu TPA belongs to Bekasi Munacipilty and Burangke TPA belongs to Bekasi Regency.
It ensures only Bantar Gebang TPST has done waste water management properly. “If there found dozens of plastic laundry and small industries which have no waste water treatment, thus its waste water directly flowed to river around Bekasi. But the big question is when the river in Bekasi polluted, why only blaming to Jakarta?” he stated.
View the original article here

Impact of landfill caps on leachate emissions: an Austrian case study - Recycling News (press release)

Brussels -- Municipal solid waste (MSW) landfills, which consist of everyday consumer items, are potential long-term sources of emissions that could threaten the environment and human health if they are not managed carefully after closure. New research has presented a methodology to estimate future emission levels for closed MSW landfills and the impact of different aftercare strategies.

Kommunalunternehmen des Landkreises Bad KissingenGlobally, landfilling is the main method for disposing of solid waste. Highly industrialised countries, such as the US, the UK and Finland, extensively depend on landfilling their waste without any pre-treatment. As MSW landfills are possibly long-term sources of emissions, these sites need to be managed beyond closure. According to the EU Landfill Directive, which took effect in 1999, landfill operators have to continue managing sites after closure as long as the authority considers the landfill not likely to present a hazard to the environment any more.
Cap removed after 20 years

The researchers used an Austrian MSW landfill in Breitenau as a case study to evaluate emission levels from the site and to demonstrate the long-term environmental effects of installing a final cover to prevent emissions. This site was closed in 1989 and was capped with layers of gravel (0.2 metres) and sandy silt (0.9 metres). The temporary cap was removed after 20 years (in 2009) and a composite lining system was installed as the final cover. The study focused on one landfill compartment, which contained around 35,000 tons of MSW.

Leachate emissions decrease very slowly and may have environmental impacts for centuries to come. The approach to evaluate potential future emissions was based on a comprehensive assessment of the state of the landfill and included analysis of monitoring data, investigations of landfilled waste, and an evaluation of containment systems and site-specific factors, such as climate. Future emission levels were modelled and site-specific predictions of leachate emissions were presented.

Increased leachate after flushing

The results suggest that leachate concentrations increased considerably at the site when there was a change in the water flow pattern of the waste during final cover construction. Specifically, the concentrations of leachate pollutants chloride and ammonia-nitrogen increased from 200 to 800 milligrams per litre (mg/l) and 140 to about 500 mg/l, respectively. It is found that a period of intensive flushing after the change of the water flow pattern and before the final cover installation would have reduced the amount of leachable substances within the landfill and substance concentrations in the leachate would decrease to 11 mg/l of chloride and 79 mg/l of ammonia-nitrogen within 50 years.

Different aftercare strategies

A decline in water infiltration due to the installation of an impermeable top cover may lead to high substance concentrations in the leachate for centuries (above 400 mg of chloride per litre and 200 mg ammonia-nitrogen per litre), but with low associated annual emission loads (below 12 kg of chloride and 9 kg of ammonia-nitrogen per year). However, a gradual decrease in the cover?s performance may be expected without cover maintenance and would be associated with higher emission loads of a maximum of 50 kg of chloride and 30 kg of ammonia?nitrogen.

The methodology can be applied to other closed landfill sites to illustrate the effect of different aftercare strategies on the landfill pollution hazard. The researchers caution that emission models should be treated as tools to demonstrate the effect of different landfill conditions and not as deterministic forecasts of the future.

Original source: David Laner, D., Fellner, J. & Brunner, P.H. (2011) Future landfill emissions and the effect of final cover installation ? A case study. Waste Management. 31 (7):1522-1531

Quelle: EU commission

View the original article here

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

The Swiss have invariably been highly environmentally aware, and for a long time have looked after their environment in an exemplary fashion. The 'Guidelines to waste product control in Switzerland ' ( EKA, 1986 ) were set in 1986, well before many states. One mandatory objective of this as a code of sound practise has been that all waste product management procedures need to provide materials which either are reusable or can be dumped in a rubbish heap without any negative or damaging environmental impact for long-term periods. This type of landfilling would be called 'final storage ' and the wastes in the final storage must naturally by inference have 'final storage quality'. Emissions from a last storage quality dump must be a close fit with the quality in the natural environment without any extra treatment. Another imperative objective of the Swiss waste product control policy is that each generation handles its waste to a standing of last storage quality. So that the reactions in a dump to take it to last storage quality have to be quick enough to all be finished inside thirty years, and ideally less.

As an effect of this policy, has each borough's solid waste landfills been proved to be able to get to the last storage quality within about 30 years after disposal? The final storage concept focuses predominantly on the solid waste itself stabilizing so that the new generation won't have to depend instead on the synthesised or natural barriers round the rubbish heap body, and the answer's a powerful no! The dump body has to reach an 'inert ' state so that the emissions from the rubbish heap have compatibility with the environment for long-term periods regardless of the retardation and attenuation capacities of surrounding materials. But this inactive state depends on geochemical properties of the dump site materials. The concern is that compounds in the inactive dump body may become 'mobile ' when the physical and chemical conditions in the rubbish heap change, and this will continue to be damaging even centuries after the dump was filled and revived.

A correct lining and a correct geological environment are basic absolute must-haves for last storages. They're compulsory for containment, for monitoring and, last although not least, for environmental security reasons.

Ditched in a dump, community solid waste ( MSW ) will at last come into contact water, which enters the rubbish heap continuously thru rain, even after capping as the seal can't ever be perfect over a period of time. As a result of this contact, many chemical and microbiological reactions occur. Natural compounds can be modified to other natural chemicals or inorganic compounds. Inorganic compounds can experience many chemical reactions and can be changed to other inorganic compounds.

The products of these reactions and parts of non-reacted MSW can, and at last will, be transported by leachate and by gas into the encompassing area. In addition, many physical processes, like adsorption, dissolution, rain, etc, can occur simultaneously. a MSW rubbish heap can be accepted as a 'partly continued chemical and microbiological fixed bed reactor'. Now that isn't a great thing to have in communication with groundwater which should regularly later be used as drinking water. It is also regarded as therapy facility where the target it is to get it to self-treat to a rubbish heap body of last storage quality. Major research and monitoring of landfills is a new development, controlled landfills having existed for 20 years or so already.

The present controlled landfills so are still in the exhaustive reactor phase in which radical microbiological decompositions occur.

The behavior of landfills in this period can be considered roughly properly using current models. But no experience exists regarding the long term behavior ( over even 30 years ) of MSW landfills. Thanks to the highly difficult nature of the systems, a specific prediction of long-term behavior of MSW landfills is almost impossible. So it's no exaggeration to claim that long-term leachate emissions from city solid waste landfills are unknown, and yet all across the globe each day, new and larger landfills are being built and stuffed with waste. It's all a big experiment and science hasn't determined the result. Even the Swiss, who are possibly some the most responsible guardians of the environment in the world have fallen far short of their 1986 ideals.

How can we be so complacent? Shouldn't we all be worried?

Article is based upon the paper "Long-Term Leachate Emissions from Municipal Solid Waste Landfills, Hasan Belevi and Peter Baccini, Switzerland, presented at the International Symposia on Sanitary Landfills held in Sardinia (Italy)"

Many people find this fact to be of great concern. Is all of landfilling just a huge experiment which might cause huge problems in the future? Part 2 of this article is available were we further discuss landfill final storage quality. Go there now to read more!

Avoiding Relying Too Much on the HELP Model for Forecasting Leachate Generation Rates from Landfill Sites

Uncontrolled Leachate Ponding

There is a method for estimating leachate generation rates. It has been produced by the American authorities to assist in the estimation of leachate production rates for a wide variety of MSW Landfills, and Hazardous Waste Landfills. In itself it represents a good exercise in rationalising the highly complex set of climatic and physical interactions which take place when rainfall incident on a real life landfill becomes leachate.

The problem is that just like any computer model, it produces results by mathematical processes which the average user will never be able to understand fully. To anyone other than academics who have studied the programming of the Model, and then furthermore have verified the calculations which they have produced by using it, against real-life data for existing closely landfills in similar climates, it should be thought of as a “black box”.

Even if the data these users put into the model is good, and that is by necessity rare as landfills are difficult to quantify in the terms that the model requires inputs, and the site operator actually then complies with the “plan” in detail. Also, the average HELP Model user does not get the chance to validate the results for the site in question. So, the results should be considered of doubtful accuracy, and yet leachate management plans are commonly based upon HELP models alone.

The result has been a tendency for leachate management systems designers underestimate landfill leachate generation that starts sooner than expected and is of higher volumes than predicted.

They would do better if landfill engineers would ensure that only HELP Model experienced hydrologists were engaged to do the modelling work, as well.

Unfortunately, there is no easy fix to this problem, and although the experienced hydrologist will know more clearly where his skills end in using the programme, and uncertainties remain, no magic wand can be waived without good verification data available when the HELP Model is run, and a close match can be shown.

The science of leachate volume prediction is not simple, and the methods to predict it need further research. However, landfill designers would do well to appreciate more fully the limits to the tools available for leachate flow prediction, and pass this knowledge on to landfill operators. By making the uncertainty inherent within the predictions clearer, such that more flexibility is provided within leachate management plans, and in forward planning, everyone would be better served.

After all, the lack of availability of an adequate method for controlling leachate can in some cases, over a period of only weeks allow leachate spillages into watercourses and aquifers which may take years to remedy. This may threaten the health and livelihoods of many people and the negative publicity from such incidences will only hasten the demise of the landfill in the long term. If the industry cannot avoid such instances of pollution, it probably should.

This article is supported by a more detailed discussion of this subject, which quotes papers and authors who have written on this subject in the past. Read the full article and if you wish, follow up on this with its sources, at: HELP Model at http://leachate.co.uk/main/

What Is Leachate?

So you want to understand what leachate is? You would be surprised how many people ask that question by seeking the answer from the world wide web. This is why we've created this article to clarify what family or friends might feel you ignorant of, and even stupid for wondering about what they might think was obviously a foolish issue.

An advantage of the world wide web is that you can ask these questions on virtually any topic, and on every occasion without worrying that your buddies think about what you ought to know already about what you are discovering.

So, I want to now get on with giving an answer to your issue about what leachate really is.

First, leachate can be defined as: the liquid (mostly water) which having passed through a mostly solid substance or mixture of substances picks up on its way substances which can be both liquid and solid particles, and runs out at the bottom.

To make that more clear, here is a listing of where leachate may appear, as follows:

- landfill leachate (also known as tip leachate and dump water)
- compost leachate (sometimes called compost tea)
- manure heap leachate.

This really is a bad smelling list, so let's make an effort to de-stress he issues. It may be labeled into the following kinds of leachate,as follows:

- Fresh and smelly leachate is "acetogenic" leachate
- Older leachate from landfills which are a number of years old and is call "methanogenic" leachate, as it comes from methane gas producing landfills which produce landfill gas

The key of such are:

- in the age and the degree of odour which is much worse in the new leachates.

The unique attribute is the fact that leachate is a highly organically contaminated liquid which even in small quantities can harm streams and rivers and make groundwater undrinkable if leachate contaminated water is present in a well.

The important matter, is to recollect about leachate is that it is best to take measures to make sure that making it is avoided, because once a lot of it has been produced it is expensive to dispose of without damaging the environment.

Since you have checked this article out, and have read it to the end, you clearly needed to understand a lot more about leachate, which we hope we will, have aided, you with. As a result of this research you may quite prudently have applied the services of the world wide web wisely to answer a very specific query that it is vital that you at this time resolve. Now, it is possible for you to compliment yourself for what you have learned. By training ourselves, every one of us can obtain greater results in life, and now we undoubtedly desire that you'll do well, as well.

Realize easy methods to minimise, and then if necessary treat, landfill leachate by going to our landfill leachate web site at leachate.co.uk/main.

3 Symptons Which Could Be Caused By Leachate Pollution And Are Worth Looking Out For

It is almost always the case that a problem like leachate pollution can easily be diagnosed and solved by matching the symptoms that you see, to a known problem. In fact that's what a medical doctor spends his time doing every time he interviews a patient. However, the technique isn't just limited to the practise of medicine, it works for all sorts of problems. That is why we have written this article to help you understand what the symptoms of leachate pollution are.

So, before we go any further, here are the three symptoms often experienced when quite severe leachate pollution occurs in a river or stream occurs as the river or stream passes a landfill. 

Sympton No. 1 is the disappearance of the normal water-life. The first to be lost will be fish which can no longer live due to a depletion of oxygen in the water.

Sympton No. 2, which is often seen in such circumstanes is that if flow is quite slow the surface of the water may have a sheen of colour which looks almost like the rainbow colours of oil floating on water. However, if leachate is the cause instead of a flexible coating, this colourful surface layer can be cracked and dispersed by agitating it.

This most often occurs when a high concentration of dissolved iron is leaking into the watercourse, in the leachate.

Sympton No. 3: The final symptom in these cases is that if a water quality sample is taken and the concentration of ammonia is analysed the ammonia will have risen, alongside other contaminants as well, during the passage of the stream or river past the landfill.

This happens when the rain which fell on the landfill decomposes in the landfil, producing high concentrations of ammonia which are very damaging to wildlife if it gets into watercourses.

If you have seen these symptoms of leachate pollution you are lucky, as you now know the diagnosis of the problem of leachate pollution, and knowing the problem is the first, and often the most difficult part of identifying and successfully applying a solution.

Congratulations, you have now found out what is causing these symptoms and the cause of the  problem. Don't stop now. There are many ways in which you can now find the solution to this problem. One method which is used, is to use the internet and continue by using a search engine to identify a website with the solution to this problem, but there are many other solutions such as asking an expert you know, or visiting a library.

Whichever method you use, we wish you a successful search for the solution you seek.

Discover tips on how to prevent leachate pollution at the leachate management site at leachate.co.uk.

Landia : Aeration Solutions for Composting-Leachate - Water and Wastewater

Whitchurch, Shropshire, UK -- Leading mixer and pump manufacturer Landia have reported a significant increase in the number of companies now installing aeration equipment to deal with the problems caused by composting-leachate.
In addition to the obvious proven benefit of reducing foul odors, Landia's mixers are also now being specified in order to steadily and evenly introduce oxygen, maintain humidity and greatly speed up the active biology of the leachate so that it can be re-used for irrigation of wind rows. If the option to irrigate is not taken up, there is also a strong possibility that sewage discharge costs will be reduced because the aerators help decrease the amount of pollutants in the water.

(Arerator shown is not a Landia model, as no Landia videos were available.)

"Until recently, the benefits of aerating composting-leachate have largely been overlooked", said Landia UK & Eire's Agricultural Manager, Paul Davies,?but in Ireland, for example, we have installed several of our mixers at a large composting facility, where in addition to the process benefits and odor reduction, the need to turn compost has almost been eliminated and overall capacity has been increased. For many, it?s now proving to be a false economy not to have a mixing/aeration system?.

Source: http://www.landia.co.uk/

View the original article here

Flocculation and Precipitation For the Treatment of Landfill Leachate

Flocculation and precipitation has often been proposed as a low cost and simple to implement process for municipal solid waste landfill leachate treatment. It is also a natural first thought for anyone new to leachate treatment that the combination of these two processes might be a very effective treatment combination, as they can be for certain other types of contaminated water.

The purpose of flocculation is to form flocs of particles that settle quickly. Generally , flocculation follows coagulation to get rid of colloidal (floc) particles quickly through rapid settlement.

These particles have dimensions in the region of one nm-1 m, and are distinguished by a abnormally large surface area. As an effect, they are very susceptible to surface forces. During coagulation, colloidal particles are destabilized to improve their ability to merge into bigger particles and then this speeds up their removal by gravity. Destabilization is helped by way of chemical reagents ( coagulants ) which are chosen to be minimize repulsive forces thru neutralization of electric charges present in colloidal particles ; this occurs by way of bonding or adsorption mechanisms.

All these points it is necessary to consider concern hydrophobic colloidal particles, for which stabilization derives from negative electrical charges. The more common coagulants are Aluminium Al), and Iron (Fe ( III )) salts, which are identified by multivalent ions with opposite charges.

These salts have an acid behaviour and, therefore, change the physico-chemical traits ( pH, alkalinity ) of wastewater. Their potency relies on the alkalinity of wastewater. Polymeric organic compounds ( polyelectrolytes ) are also often used as coagulants due to their capacity for charge neutralization ( cationic polyelectrolytes ) and to extend bridging between particles. The merger of destabilized colloidal particles is augmented by controlled stirring, and is further helped by addition of categorical chemicals ( 'flocculating agents' ). Among these, turned-on silica or clay ( inorganic flocculants ) and polyacetate ( organic flocculants ) are principally made use of.

Likewise , Al and Fe salts also behave as flocculants, since their low solubility permits rainfall with floe merger and concomitant capture of colloidal particles by electrostatic action or adsorption. Coagulation / flocculation is in a position to reduce colloidal suspension which is partly in charge of turbidity and color.

Also, organic substances, principally those with the larger range dimensions ( about one nm ), are concerned in the flocculation process, because they are adsorbed in the flocs and successively removed thru gravity settling.

Commonly, the term 'precipitation' is used to describe the phase that straight away follows flocculation, and, also, to the formation of insoluble compounds got by adding reagents which shift the chemical equilibrium towards the insoluble form of the compound or the elements which need to be removed.

Precipitation is principally applied to metals removal ( particularly heavy metals ), with metal hydroxide or metal sulphide formation, or phosphorus removal by formation of insoluble compounds with cationic metals, including Al or Fe coagulants. Many experimental studies utilizing coagulation / flocculation for the removal of organic substances from raw leachate have been conducted, essentially in the 1970s.

Salts of Aluminium and Iron together with lime were principally made use of as precipitation agents. Results were adverse, as COD removal potency lower than 40% was noted. The reason behind these low efficiencies can be ascribed to the incapacity of the method to get rid of substances aside from molecules of large dimensions and high molecular weight.

It was concluded that, higher treatment potency is possible but just for 'old leachate' ( with low BOD / COD ratios ) or for biologically pre-treated leachate. In fact it is most often needed for 'young leachate' (acetogenic leachate) which is distinguished by high levels of volatile trans-acids, i.e. small dimensions and only a little in the way of precipitable molecules, so that the removal involves only a minor fragment of the total of organic compounds in raw leachate.

Researchers also cite many other drawbacks like the rise of salt content and the low potency of ammoniacal compound removal. This last is almost always the final concern which rules out the use of this process in the minds of most leachate treatment experts.

OK. So we have told you the disdvantages. What are the alternatives? To find out how leachate treatment can be achieved without the problems cited here visit the leachate web site for all you need to know about garbage juice. If you still need a suitable reagent for this method go to the flocculant supply web site.

Post-closure landfill costs projected at almost $300,000 - Crossville Chronicle

CROSSVILLE — Commissioners on the budget committee had to readjust sanitation fund budget figures by nearly $300,000 to allow for post-closure landfill costs.

"After we got everything done we realized we hadn't allowed for costs associated with the post-closure landfill costs. The finance office always has been allowed some leeway and authority in adjusting numbers on the budget by the committee. What we did in order to balance those anticipated costs was move 1.5 cents from debt service over to the sanitation fund," said Cumberland County Finance Director Nathan Brock.

Mike Harvel, 7th District commissioner, who also works in the county's solid waste department, said he amended the sanitation fund budget to allow more revenue for the fund by decreasing projected leachate costs from $300,000 to $200,000 and costs for recycling bins of $8,500.

"Since it (the landfill) is closed we won't have as much costs with the leachate as we had before. So that should save at least $100,000," Harvel said.

Brock said, "It's of course up to the committee, but this was the easiest way to adjust this. The tax-rate remains the same and we just moved the 1.5 cent to make the adjustment for the figures to match the projected numbers," Brock said.

With the adjustment, the projected fund balance for the sanitation fund would be $294,639.

"How do you feel about the fund balance? Could we make it a half-cent less? I'd like to see more go back to debt service. Once it's there it won't go back," 9th District Commissioner and Budget Committee Chairman Carmin Lynch said.

"I don't mind. It's up to Nathan (Brock). He pays the bills. I feel fine about it. This budget's cut to the bone. We may have to come back later in the year and adjust it again. I don't know," Harvel said.

"How does the committee feel?" Lynch asked.

Harry Sabine, 1st District commissioner then made a motion to leave the adjustment alone as it is the way the finance department adjusted the sanitation fund and draw down the fund balance on the sanitation fund if necessary later in the year. Sonya Rimmer, 8th District commissioner, supported the motion.

It was unanimously approved.

Commissioners and committee members Johnny Presley, 3rd District, and Charles Seiber, 4th District, did not attend the meeting.

With the adjustment, the breakdown of the 2011-'12 tax rate of $1.425 will be:

General Fund — 55 cents

Solid Waste/Sanitation Fund — 14 cents

General Purpose School Fund — 56.5 cents

General Debt Service — 17 cents

View the original article here

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

 Joyce Dixon of Friends of Houghton.

A WASTE management company has been fined £27,000 after residents kicked up a stink about smells from a rubbish dump.

Houghton residents complained to the Environment Agency (EA) about the landfill site.

Inspectors visited the dump in Houghton Quarry, which was twice found to be smelling so badly that it was breaking the law.

Owner Biffa admitted two offences under the Environmental Planning Regulations Act at Sunderland Magistrates’ Court.

Prosecuting for the EA, Paul Harley said inspector Gary Wallace visited the tip on February 7 last year.

He found a large pile of uncovered waste which had a foul-smelling liquid – known as leachate – running from it.

On March 2, inspector Alice Evans was called out to investigate a smell of rotten eggs in Cathedral View. Residents complained it was “pungent, gassy and a strong rotten stench”.

However she did not visit the landfill site, as it was about 9pm.

Defending, Ray Clarke called the two incidents “isolated lapses”.

He said: “Biffa would like to apologise for these regrettable incidents.

“We regret the circumstances which led to the prosecution and would like to apologise to the court, the regulator and the individuals who were affected on these particular days.”

A further three charges were dropped by the EA.

Magistrates fined Biffa £15,000 for the first offence and £12,000 for the second.

Costs of £8,250 were also ordered.

Joyce Dixon, 86, from Newbottle, a member of pressure group Residents Against Toxic Site, sat through the hearing.

Afterwards she said: “We have suffered throughout the years and it has been hell.

“We are happy that they have been brought to court.”

In a statement, Buckinghamshire-based Biffa, said: “Biffa is committed to operating all waste facilities to high standards in order to ensure the continued protection of the environment and therefore apologies for the situation which led to this prosecution.

“In addition Biffa has worked hard to rectify the situation.

“Throughout investigations, it co-operated fully with the Environment Agency and a new site management team has undertaken a series of engineering works.

“This has included the installation of further has control pipe work and site capping work in order to prevent a reoccurrence.

“The company is also working closely with its regulators and hopes to liaise more closely with key stakeholders in the community to further improve relationships.”

View the original article here

Investigation Reveals Potential Public Health Hazard - WVNS-TV

CHARLESTON -- Scientists call it "leachate." Trash haulers call it "compacter juice." It's the awful stuff that trickles, oozes and splashes out the back of the trucks that haul your garbage.

No question it's dirty. But our news department wondered if it was also dangerous.

(The video above is not related to the article but we thought it might interest you.)

So we had it tested. What we found shocked the seasoned experts we consulted. And it may mean the street where you live has a lot more in common with an open sewer in a Third World country than you ever imagined.

We followed compactor trucks on three separate days in different parts of Charleston, watching them crush trash and squeeze out smelly trails and pools of liquid on dozens of streets. It quickly became clear the cloudy fluid was pouring out into puddles or being drizzled in looping arcs up one street and down another.

But is it dangerous?

We took samples from a random truck on a random day. Not a scientific study, but a kind of snapshot of the contamination draining onto the streets from city garbage trucks.

"When I first saw the results for the fecal coliform, for the E. coli, I was pretty shocked at the large amount of bacteria found in the leachate," said Anita Ray, Environmental Health Director at the Kanawha-Charleston Health Department. "I am not used to seeing counts that high in things that we would routinely sample, such as outflow from a malfunctioning sewage system."

That's right. Contamination levels in the liquid are so high the only thing to compare it to is untreated sewage.

"Quite obviously," said Ray, "from the lab results that you have pulled just from this one snapshot in time, it indicates there is a pretty high potential for a public health hazard."

The bacteria E. Coli can make you extremely sick, or even kill you. It's also used as an indicator of other dangerous microorganisms. It's so dangerous, levels of E. coli in treated wastewater, for instance, can't be more than a few hundred when it's poured into the Kanawha River (depending on the number of tests). But one leachate sample we took spewing from the back of a garbage truck came back with a reading well over 4,000,000. Another was 16,000,000. And a third pegged the meter. All the lab could determine was that it was above 60,000,000.

That's why Ray calls these puddles and wet trails on your streets a potential public health hazard. Even after it dries, it's picked up on shoes, stroller wheels, anything.

"The worst case scenario, as I've said before," Ray said, "is if you have a child that has a ball or something and runs through the street, the object runs through this stuff and then the child contacts it with their hands, then puts their hand in their mouth or whatever, you've got a real potential for a transfer of that E. coli into the child's system."

How does Ray account for readings that high?

"If I might speculate, which I don't like to do ordinarily," Ray offered, "it could also be because the trucks -- and I have no idea of knowing this -- may not be cleaned out on a daily basis, and that may be showing up as a accumulative residue, if you will, of that bacteria along with the day's collection."

In other words, an unwashed truck could wind up being a big Petri dish, collecting and growing bacteria over time, and then spewing it out onto your street for your kids to play in and your dog to track into the house. And maybe make you very sick.

You can find a copy of our lab results here.

In the second part of this Hometown Investigation, we'll look under Charleston garbage trucks to figure out why so many leave wet trails of dangerous leachate behind, and we'll reveal the $10 fix for the problem.

View the original article here

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

Food waste is approximately 14% of the household waste we discard. Food waste is of concern to environmental agencies and municipalities because in landfills food waste is a primary cause of methane gas emissions, a very potent greenhouse gas, and the methanogens that food waste supports in landfills also cause the mobilization of other pollutants in landfills, resulting in an increase in both air pollutants and leachate.

In waste combustors, food waste is a cause of nitrogen oxide emissions, which is also a greenhouse gas, as well as a cause of smog and respiratory illness. Moreover, since food waste can contain as much as 70% water, it is not a high Btu fuel, and therefore is not well-suited for combustion. The best disposal option for food waste is neither landfilling nor incineration. Ideally, food waste should be composted. If you have a compost bin where you live, you can incorporate food waste into your home compost – if not, consider setting up a home compost system. Home composting avoids transportation of organic wastes, saving fuel and other resources associated with transporting waste. There are many resources describing the options for home composting, including http://www.stopwaste.org/home/index.asp?page=441 – these range from backyard bins to vermicompost (worm bins), and can be tailored to fit your needs. In some communities (such as San Francisco), food waste is collected in curbside recycling programs, usually along with yard waste. Typically, in a municipal composting system, you can compost a wider variety of wastes (including animal products and food-soiled paper) than you might be able to accommodate in home composting. Check with your local waste management authority to find options for the disposal of food and yard wastes in your community.

If you don’t have access to composting, you can dispose of most food waste in under-sink food waste disposers, also known as garbage disposals. Many municipal wastewater treatment facilities have anaerobic digesters that extract energy in the form of biogas from solids in the waste water, and most can produce soil amendments such as fertilizer from processed solids. Some wastewater treatment systems benefit from the addition of food solids, because that can make the process of converting waste into energy more efficient, but too much or the wrong types of food waste can overwhelm the system. This is one of the reasons it makes sense to use in-sink disposers as a complement to municipal and backyard composting programs. Moreover, in-sink food disposal systems increase the amount of water used at home. Although this increase is only a small amount for any individual home, the added water from tens of thousands of homes switching to in-sink disposal units can be significant. Finally, cooking oils, fats, and greases should never be disposed of down the drain. Even if you use hot water, detergents, or garbage disposals, oils can congeal in pipes and potentially contribute to sewage backups.

To sum up, food scraps should not be sent to landfills or incinerators. Instead, the best option for disposing of food waste is composting, whether at home or in a municipal system. The next best option is typically an in-sink waste disposer – but check to make sure your community isn’t running low on water before using garbage disposals, and make sure only to put allowed wastes down the drain.

View the original article here

Garbage in Hyderabad sold out - Deccan Chronicle

June 1: As cities grow and create more garbage, disposal of the waste has become a big problem for municipal corporations around the country, including the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation. So the trend to generate power from garbage, thus keeping cities clean, saving municipal bodies money, and increasing power capacity in a power-hungry city, can only be welcomed.

The waste to electricity project will mean a saving of nearly Rs 200 crore per annum for the GHMC, the amount it spends on collection, transportation, dumping and disposal of 3,500 metric tonnes of garbage generated every day in the city, which will now be done by private operators. The privately owned waste-to-energy plants will make money by converting the municipal solid waste into useful energy (electricity). GHMC has signed an agreement to supply 700 metric tonnes of garbage to Selco power plant at Shadnagar, another 700 metric tonnes per day to RDF Power Plant at Bibinagar, 700 metric tonnes to Sri Venkateshwara Green Power Project Ltd. at Ibrahimpatnam and the remaining to Ramky Enviro Engineers Ltd. at Jawaharnagar. What’s more, the Tata Power Trading Company, a giant in the private power sector, has come forward to purchase the power generated by RDF and Sri Venkateshwara power plants. Selco already has an agreement with APTransco, and Ramky is all set to finalise its power purchase agreement with a private company. Urban development experts and environmentalists have welcomed the waste to energy route for garbage disposal. As private companies stand to make crores of rupees, they will ensure that no garbage is left on the streets, and that it is collected and supplied to them for production of power every day.

Eminent environmentalist Mr K. Purushotham Reddy said: “The sate government should set up a mechanism to monitor that the remains of the garbage, after energy is produced, is disposed off in a scientific manner. Let’s hope the private garbage power plants project is successful and Greater Hyderabad becomes a more eco-friendly city.” Venkateshwara Projects will take 700 metric tonnes of garbage daily from GHMC and produce nearly 2 lakh power units per day, according to its executive director Mr N.S.R. Naidu. The 12 MW garbage power plant of Venkateshwara will be operational soon.

The 11 MW waste-to-energy plant of RDF Power Projects Pvt. Ltd. at Bibinagar has already signed a power purchase agreement with Tata Power, which will buy power at Rs 3.60 per unit. The plant will produce 2 lakh units of power every day. The SELCO power plant at Shadnagar and Sriram Energy Systems Pvt. Ltd. at Vijayawada, were the first in the country to start producing power out of garbage. They have a long-term agreement with APTransco to purchase power from them.

In fact, all metropolitan cities are now promoting garbage power plants as not only a solution to dispose of garbage in an environmentally sound way but also to turn a profit while doing so.

Ramky Enviro Engineers Ltd.’s project director, Ms Padmaja, said that the company’s Rs 897 crore integrated solid waste management project in Greater Hyderabad will not only set up the garbage power plant but also establish a sorting plant, compost units and leachate sumps at the Jawaharnagar dumping yard.

These three main components of the project will gradually put an end to air and ground water pollution besides allowing the segregation of garbage at the dumping yard if not at the doorsteps of citizens. Leachate sumps will suck the liquid from the garbage while the sorting plant will segregate materials that are harmful to the environment and those that can be sent for recycling or to compost units. The GHMC additional commissioner, health and sanitation, Mr S.K. Aleem Basha, said the demand for supply of garbage to the private power plants is increasing. “All the agreements are in place for supply of 3,500 metric tonnes of garbage to the power plants. One power plant has recently urged us to increase their quota from 700 metric tonnes to 1,000 metric tonnes of garbage per day,” he said.

View the original article here

Plant to accept more leachate - Waste Management World

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

View the original article here

Unlocking energy from our fetid garbage tombs - CTV.ca

ANH CHU - The Globe and Mail

In Calgary's Shepard landfill, the seagulls squawk like a dissenting mob amid the drone of heavy machinery flattening trash. But one hectare of land sits with no apparent activity above ground. Below the surface lies the potential to transform the way cities manage their solid waste.

This site is home to the Biocell, a pilot project whose premise – garbage as a renewable resource – sounds more like wishful thinking than reality.

“Landfills are garbage graveyards, or perpetual storage,” says Patrick Hettiaratchi, biocell research lead at the University of Calgary's Schulich School of Engineering. Unexpected finds have been unearthed from old landfills, where even organic waste such as yard clippings and kitchen scraps are slow to biodegrade in the dry, tomb-like conditions.

“It's quite easy to read a newspaper from the 1970s,” says Corey Colbran, landfill operations leader at the City of Calgary.

Conventional sanitary landfills try to minimize the two common hazards of trash: leachate (toxic garbage juice) and methane (a major contributor to greenhouse gases). The biocell is a sustainable, closed-loop system in which the negative byproducts of garbage become advantages.

Leachate is collected at the bottom of the cell and recirculated through a network of pipes – meaning the toxic soup doesn't need to burden wastewater treatment plants. The moisture from the leachate speeds up the degradation of the garbage, and because no oxygen is present, the anaerobic environment accelerates the production of methane. The research team at the Schulich School of Engineering is finding ways to augment the leachate to degrade tough materials.

Normally, more methane is not a desirable outcome. But within the biocell, the gas is collected and converted into electricity. From 2007 to 2009, more than 800,000 cubic metres were converted into electricity, which then helped power Calgary’s light-rail transit system.

The production of methane for electricity is not new, but the landfill biocell is unique. A two-day workshop of international engineering consultants provided the genesis for the pilot project in 2003. “People have tried gas extraction before. People have tried landfill mining. We said, ‘Why don't we combine these ideas?’” explains Dr. Hettiaratchi.

Methane production is the first of three stages. “The first stage is an anaerobic reactor, where we get the gas out. For the second stage, we put air into the system and make it aerobic, so it becomes like composting,” says Dr. Hettiaratchi. About 70 per cent of the waste in Calgary's landfills is organic.

Once methane production slows, phase two begins and air is dispersed throughout the cell to mimic the aerobic biodegradation that occurs during composting. The resulting compost-like material should be stable enough to use in the city's parks.

In the third and last phase, the area will be mined for non-biodegradable materials. “Dirty plastics could be used to manufacture things like park benches,” Dr. Hettiaratchi explains.

Calgary has about 30 to 40 years of landfill space left, and a biocell could extend that to 100 years. It would also be cost-effective. “The landfill becomes a cheap processing facility,” says Dr. Hettiaratchi. Researchers picture biocells processing landfill waste in networks of 10 cells – with eight in operation concurrently, one in the filling stage and one in the excavating stage.

The project is as collaborative as the techniques suggest. In addition to the university, the City of Calgary works with consulting engineering firm Stantec for design and construction, and CH2M Hill for operations.

The pilot has yet to be completed and its results analyzed, but the bottom line is the biocell must prove itself as a financially viable option for cities.

“The focus is on making sure all the technology works” before applying for patents for particular components, says Dr. Hettiaratchi, noting that any experiment may have unexpected results.

“Our initial research estimate, as far as construction was concerned, was that the biocell would cost 50 per cent more than the typical landfill,” he says, estimating that Calgary has spent about $2-million to $3-million so far in the biocell's construction, not including operations and management.

“Regardless of what methods a municipality chooses to manage its organic waste, there will still be landfills of some description, because some materials are just not recyclable or reusable,” says Stantec's Don Davies.

The biocell can generate energy, create compost, recover other resources and reduce the amount of leachate and greenhouse gas emissions produced, but the biggest advantage could come in a finite resource that all burgeoning cities face: space.

“Space is at a premium at landfill sites, so excavating the site is critical because you're then able to reuse that area,” says Mr. Colbran.

The biocell project has already garnered awards for innovation in engineering. If the results remain as promising as they have been in Calgary's dry and wintry climes, which prolong the process, the benefits are far-reaching. In fact, a waste management company from Mumbai has already discussed adopting the technology.

Mr. Davies speaks best to the necessity of innovative thinking when it comes to garbage: “Whether it's the biocell concept or some other method of processing organic waste, this is the future.”

View the original article here

Judge Orders Guam EPA to Inspect Questioned Dump Sites Around Ordot Dump - Pacific News Center

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.

View the original article here