The top of every landfill should be rounded, and certainly never a flat plateau, and if your landfill has a flat plateau you should go right now to the regulators and the planners and ask for more capacity to be allowed to ask for a rounded contour with surface slopes initially at no shallower than 1 in 20, whcih after settlement will end up probably at only 1 in 20 which is only just enough to stop sighnificant ponding. In essence you need the surface water from a landfill cap to flo off it quickly. UK research in the 1990s showed this need for a good shedding slope to the top of a landfill to reduce leachate production, to be a big factor in all cases studied.
Here is an extract from the original article:
TRENT HILLS -- The key to a landfill achieving its full potential is that it be well-rounded. Northumberland County will be making that argument when it applies to the Ministry of the Environment to increase the capacity of the Seymour landfill by 39,000 cubic metres so the mound atop the waste disposal site will be rounded.
The landfill's approved final contours is for a plateau on top which will lead to increased infiltration of precipitation into the landfill and cause "higher than necessary leachate generation rates," manager of planning and technical support Adam McCue said in a report to County council April 18.
If the ministry agrees to the request for additional waste material and cover soil, Seymour Landfill's operating life would be extended by up to two years, he said.
With its capacity currently valued at $95 per tonne, the landfill would produce an additional $1.85 million in revenue during that time, he added.
Mo Pannu, director of transportation and waste management, said the site's capacity is expected to run out by the end of this year or early in 2013.
He said it will take four to five months for the application to be processed.
The application to the ministry will cost $22,700. The County also approved an expenditure of $42,500 to develop detailed design, operations and closure plan in support of the request. Both expenses will be funded from savings in this year's transportation and waste management department budgets.
The importance of avoiding landfill leachate escapes to landfill operators is once again made clear in this article which we found recently, where the problem is all about the release of leachate into the nearby creek. It shows, yet again, how important it is to ensure that leachate is managed carefully. Which means that the city’s municipal solid waste landfill may be closed to new waste tipping, but it’s far from being off the local radar screen.
Here is an extract from the article:
The Florence City Council could vote tonight to pay its engineering consultant $21,130 to investigate the source of a leachate escape in February that ultimately led to the state issuing a notice of violation.
The contract with Highland Technical Services would also authorize the company to take steps to recover leachate — water polluted with garbage — from the cell from which it originally escaped. If that option is chosen, the cost will increase to $55,640.
The council voted recently to close the landfill to municipal solid waste, leaving the remaining space for construction and demolition debris. The landfill was running out space, and the council deadlocked for months on whether to open a final cell or close the landfill and hire a contractor to haul trash out of state. The latter option was chosen as a temporary emergency measure in December because the current cell filled in early January.
In March, the council voted to extend its contract with Waste Connections, which is operating a transfer station for the city.
The notice of violation from the Alabama Department of Environmental Management cited the release of leachate into nearby Cypress Creek during a rain event. The violation is considered serious, and the notice stated a monetary fine could be imposed.
The council’s 3-3 deadlock was broken when Councilman Sam Pendleton and Council President James Barnhart voted to extend the contract with Waste Connections. Pendleton said the violation convinced him the landfill has problems. Barnhart, who had been concerned with costs, said Waste Connections’ guarantee of a long-term steady price helped sway his decision.
Here is an open letter from a resident who is appears to be declaring that leachate from a municipal waste landfill which the Waste Water Treatment Plant operator is presumably happy to accept, which must surely mean that there is sufficient treatment capacity at the Waste Water Treatment Plant to treat it, should not be sent there.
(The video below is for your general information and not associated with this article.)
This seems quite remarkable when around the worl the majority of landfill leachate is treated at sewage works, and for example the World Bank often prefers that it be treated finally at a Waste Water Treatment Plant, that this objection should be being made. Of course, the leachate might contain toxic substances, apart from the usual high strength organic contamination which is always present in landfill leachate. It also might well contain dissolved methane which might make it an explosion risk to discharge into the sewer, and need methane stripping before it is discharges, or, it might actually be more cost effectively provided with initial leachate treatment plant at the landfill site, by installation of a nitrification treatment plant, of which i have designed and supervisied construction of many.
However, just to say this is horrible suff this landfill leachate and must not go to the sewer or the Waste Water Treatment Plant by tankers, is likely to place a high and unnecessary burden of cost on the community, for little environmental benefit, if any. You can read the opern letter below. Please also visit the original blog article:
Dear Officials (town and city of Geneva):
The residents of the Town and City of Geneva and the Town of Seneca are bearing most of the burden of the off-site environmental problems coming from the Ontario County landfill. These residents are becoming more cynical about the ability and the willingness of some local officials to stand up and represent their constituents, as opposed to the interests of Casella Waste. Because of that, it seems like a good time to state an important concern about pending sewer negotiations.
Any final agreement must contain safeguards against Casella ever being able to transport leachate from the landfill through any jointly owned/operated sewer line to the Geneva Waste Water Treatment Plant, which discharges into Seneca Lake. Although this battle was fought months ago, that was not a final victory for Seneca Lake and those who drink its water, since leachate is still being trucked to the waste water treatment plant. The appetite of some local officials for leachat dollars apparently is never satisfied. City Council’s courageous decision against a direct pipeline from the dump to the treatment plant must be confirmed for the future in any city-town agreement about sewers.
In keeping with this decision and the concerns of residents, it is essential that any sewer agreements between the Town of Geneva and the Town of Seneca, and between the City of Geneva and the Town of Geneva include specific language preventing Casella or any future operator of the landfill from transporting leachate through city and town sewer lines.
Locals will be pleased abut new invetsment in environmental protection measures at the Merrick landfill site, as in the quotation which follows:
NORTH BAY, US - Engineering plans for a leachate collection and treatment facility at the city's Merrick landfill are ready to be drafted after council approved a $1.7 million expenditure during its March 5 meeting.
"Once completed, these plans will be presented to the Ministry of Environment for comment. We expect that to be completed by the end of the summer and hope to be able to tender out the construction of the project by late fall," said North Bay's manager of environmental services John Severino.
It is expected the leachate treatment facility will be operational by the spring of 2014.
The leachate treatment system has been designed by Conestoga Rovers and Associates, with input from Queen's University students who have been actively studying the city's landfill site and estimating future waste management needs.
"We actually have students at Queen's doing their thesis on our site," said City engineer Alan Korell, "and the National Research Council has put money in as well."
Total costs of this project have been budgeted at $5 million, money well spent according to Korell. He says the landfill site, "is the city's biggest opportunity to make a positive impact on the environment."
Severino says the system the city has chosen allows for the treatment of the liquid seepage so it can be directly returned to the environment. "It is also a flexible system in order to address any future concerns and is part of the whole Green Plan for the city."
The Merrick landfill, opened in 1994 with a footprint of 40.5 acres and has a life expectancy of 20 more years. Divided into 10 cells, "the first cells were naturally attenuated," said Severino, "where the leachate was allowed to run into the ground and be naturally treated. When we opened cell five, we put down a clay liner to collect the leachate, and have done the same with cell six, recently opened."
The treatment project is a complement to the methane collection system already part of the landfill operations.
"Currently we are collecting and flaring the methane gas. This system has only a one-twentieth impact on the environment compared to the natural process," said Severino. "Once the cogeneration plant is operational, the methane will not only produce energy for the area but will also be used to heat and help facilitate the leachate treatment system."
North Bay's energy from gas project, is the first to receive approval under the province's new Green Energy Act and is targeted to start production the end of June. The cost of this initiative was also $5 million.
"At peak capacity the plant should generate 1.6 megawatts of electricity," said Korell. "Enough to supply many of the homes in the area and stabilize that end of the city. It's about the equivalent of 1,300 homes."
The cogeneration plant will offset about 45,000 tons of carbon dioxide annually.
North Bay Hydro received approval for the renewable energy project in June 2011.
"Our philosophy, when it comes to the landfill site, is to limit what's going in there, and to optimize what's going on," Korell said.
Korell and Severino are excited about the city's approach to waste management, and are already eyeing starting the expansion planning process in about 10 years in order to have everything in place at the end of the current certification period. They both feel the city is, "ahead of the game in Northern Ontario," and they want to see it stay in the environmental lead.
"We are already diverting as much as 40 per cent of our waste, through recycling," said Korell, " and we're working to make the current landfill site last as long as possible.
"We're also fortunate that the city owns lots of land where the site is now, so we'll be able to expand, rather than have to look for a new location."
As the first such site approved to produce biogas, "we've sort of been the provincial guinea pig," said Severino. "MOE has been using us as a demonstration site and bringing people to show them what a well managed landfill is like."
Mayor Al McDonald says the landfill site initiatives are part of council's commitment to the environment and to future generations.
"These projects see over $10 million invested at the Merrick landfill site," he said, " to ensure the City's future needs are satisfied in an environmentally responsible way."
This article expresses some surprise that Old Albion Landfill still oozes Leachate. Leachate is being produced "unexpectedly" long after landfill closure at the Old Albion Landfill, and yet it has always been apparent that modern landfills may take centuries before leachate ceases. The highly contaminated liquid was first spotted about two years ago, oozing from the site also known as the Orleans Sanitary Landfill. It is a 35-acre site that was closed and capped in the mid-1990s. Read on for the article and visit the original site for further information:
The liquid – leachate or garbage juice from the landfill – had been pumped and hauled to the Albion sewer plant for about 15 years. That was until 2009, when a post-closure account, set up to pay for the landfill’s leachate pumping, was depleted.
Now the landfill is full of water, and it’s migrating out of the pumping holes in the big mound along Densmore Road. Dan Schuth, manager of the Orleans County Soil and Water Conservation District, worries the leachate could reach Sandy Creek.
The state Department of Environmental Conservation said the leachate doesn’t pose an imminent threat, but the DEC wants the liquid pumped and hauled away.
“There is no cause for immediate concern,” said Linda Vera, DEC citizen participation specialist. “However, since leachate is accumulating within the Orleans Sanitary Landfill, it should be routinely collected to avoid the potential of groundwater contamination.”
Groundwater monitoring wells surround OSL, and samples were routinely collected and analyzed until the fund was exhausted, Vera said.
Albion town officials have been approached by Richard Penfold from Blasdell about a new landfill in the community, a project that was first proposed by Waste Management in the mid-1990s. The DEC approved a permit for Waste Management, but the Town Board later rejected the project, a decision that was upheld in court.
As part of its proposal for a new 78-acre landfill, Waste Management offered to take care of OSL and another neighboring landfill, the 18-acre McKenna site. McKenna is a Superfund site and continues to have its leachate pumped and hauled to the Albion sewer plant.
Albion town officials don’t believe OSL is a town responsibility.
“It’s a privately owned site,” said Robert Roberson, the attorney for the town. “It’s not the town’s. We don’t have anything to do with it.”
Waste Management was leasing the property from John and Irene Smith, the former OSL owners, but that lease ended last year and the site is back is the hands of the Smith’s bankrupt estate, said Dawn Allen, the county’s real property tax director.
“The leachate needs to be pumped out and hauled away,” Roberson said. “I don’t know whose responsibility it is.”
Waste Management took over the OSL site after the operators declared bankruptcy in the early 1990s, leaving an open landfill. Waste Management took in more garbage at the site, ensuring the landfill was properly capped. The company set aside some of the money from that operation in 1993 and 1994 for a post-closure account. That fund ran out of money in 2009, Vera said.
She said the ongoing care for the landfill should fall on the owners, the Smiths, who declared bankruptcy. The town or the county, because they never operated the site, isn’t required to take over the post-closure care of the landfill, Vera said.
“However, either or both may choose to provide post-closure care due to concern about the environment,” she said.
During last week’s Town Board meeting, Roberson said that Penfold, a former president of CID Landfill, believes the Waste Management DEC permit is still valid in Albion.
That permit expires in November 2013, Vera said, but “many factors may complicate another operator's pursuit of that permit.” The permit has since been suspended and the original project, approved by the DEC in 2003, never commenced. Waste Management also requested that a related DEC air permit be discontinued.
While Schuth is worried that the leachate could reach Sandy Creek, DEC inspectors see no evidence of that so far, Vera said.
The surface water from the landfill drains to a quarry on the south side of the canal, Vera said. That quarry then discharges under the canal to another quarry on the north side of the canal, which then discharges to a tributary to Sandy Creek. Although the canal is close to the landfill, “there is little likelihood that any leachate from OSL would enter the canal,” she said.
Schuth, the Soil and Water leader, also expressed concern that the continued water buildup in the landfill could jeopardize the structural integrity of the landfill.
Structural stability of the landfill is difficult to predict, but it would be unlikely there will be a “blowout” of the side slope of the landfill, Vera said.
“A more likely possibility is leachate seeping into the groundwater over time because of the buildup of leachate on the liner,” she said.
The older portion of the landfill only has a compacted soil liner, which met the regulations when that section was built. Later phases of the landfill were constructed with improved liner systems, but none conform to the current requirement of a double composite liner system, Vera said.
Roberson, the attorney for the town, doesn’t expect the issue of caring for the landfill to go away anytime soon. And Albion won’t be alone as more privately owned landfills meet their capacity and face ongoing monitoring and maintenance.
“This is a looming problem down the road,” Roberson said. “These kinds of problems will only get more pronounced over the years.”
COLUMBUS – Ohio EPA has issued Tunnel Hill Partners LP a final solid waste permit and modification to its wastewater discharge permit. The final air permit was issued earlier this summer. The company requested the permits to expand the landfill at 2500 Township Road 205, Route 2 in New Lexington. The landfill spans Pike, Harrison and Clayton townships in Perry County.
Ohio EPA held a public hearing on May 11, 2011, and an information session on June 3, 2010, to explain the proposed expansion, answer questions and receive public comments. Before issuing the permits, Ohio EPA reviewed the technical aspects of the applications and determined that they met the requirements of state and federal clean air and water quality standards and solid waste rules.
The solid waste permit will allow a lateral and vertical expansion at the 544-acre facility. The lateral expansion will increase the approved disposal area by 69 acres. The vertical expansion authorizes new disposal capacity above the previously authorized 49-acre disposal area. This will bring the landfill’s footprint to 118 acres. ( Currently, the landfill’s developed footprint is 11.7 acres, though it has been previously approved to occupy 49 acres.)
Additionally, the permit increases the authorized maximum daily waste receipt from 5,000 tons to 8,000 tons. If the landfill took in 8,000 tons of waste per day, it would take 11.5 years to fill. The landfill design includes a composite liner; leachate collection (the water that has come in contact with buried landfill wastes); surface water management; ground water monitoring; and final closure cap. The permit also requires 30 years of post-closure care and financial assurance for closure and post-closure care.
A draft modification to the landfill’s wastewater discharge permit took effect on September 1, 2011. The modification was required since the surface area contributing storm water runoff to the sedimentation pond will change. Landfill leachate is not permitted to go to the sediment pond. The permit limits discharges of pollutants into Rush Creek.
In June, Ohio EPA issued the company a final air permit that establishes allowable emissions from unpaved roadways and parking areas, the municipal solid waste landfill and rail unloading areas based on an anticipated increase in the waste acceptance rate. The air permit also establishes requirements for landfill gas collection and control.
The permits and related materials are available for review at Ohio EPA’s Southeast District Office (2195 Front Street, Logan, Ohio 43138) by first calling (740) 385-8501 or (800) 686-7330.
Issuance of the final solid waste permit and wastewater permit modification can be appealed to the Ohio Environmental Review Appeals Commission (ERAC). Appeals generally must be filed within 30 days of issuing the final action; therefore, Ohio EPA recommends that anyone wishing to file an appeal contact ERAC online or at (614) 466-8950 for more information.
Dynatec was awarded a contract in late 2011 to provide a turnkey pilot system for landfill leachate treatment for the City of Calgary. Here is their news release.
(Above video is by another MBR company but we thought it would be of interest. Dynatec do not appear to have produced a video of their product for YouTube.)
Dynatec was the only company to respond to the tender that has experience in producing pilot systems of this type and proven experience with landfill leachate treatment systems. CH2M Hill is the city's engineer. The contract value is around $1M. The system is expected to start up later this year.
Landfill leachate is a difficult wastewater to treat.
The leachate to be treated in this project includes high BOD and COD, heavy metals, and high ammonia. We face the challenge to evaluate treatment processes to either discharge to a POTW or directly to surface or ground water. The system will have to operate under extreme conditions with temperatures reaching -400. The system is designed for flexibility to evaluate different treatment processes.
Dynatec will use chemical pretreatment followed by our Hi-Rate MBR with aerobic and anoxic (MLE process) and a two-pass RO system. The pilot system will be containerized for mobility because the city wants to be able to test the process at other facilities.
Why Dynatec? Dynatec has extensive experience in difficult wastewater treatment applications such as this one. Projects like the hazardous landfill in Bellevue, MI have given us the experience required to succesfully execute this type of project.
In we see a citizen who is taking an interest in her local landfill, and really keeping her local council on the ball! Read the article quoted below and you will see just how well Ms. Cocalis has defined the leachate problem. I would say that she is a big asset to the community. I wonder whether, given as she says, that the landfill will continue to produce leachate for many years it would not be better to investigate building a dedictaed leachate treatment plant on the landfill site operated by the site staff. I have designed many of these and they have saved much money, and continue to do so, the landfill owners a lot of money long term. Read on for the article:
Landfill seepage, costs are up says BoH chairman. So, an alternative model sought for leachate disposal
The Board of Health chairman, STURBRIDGE, said that not only has the level of seepage at the town's landfill gone up considerably, but the cost of removing the liquid pollutant is already way over budget. While the town allocates $26,000 for the collection of leachate at the landfill on Breakneck Road for the entire fiscal year, it has spent approximately $71,000 for leachate collection in the last six months, according to Board of Health Chairman Linda N. Cocalis. And the previous fiscal year cost was reportedly $76,000, which was $50,000 more (and triple) the original amount that was budgeted.
"I don"t know how many of you like to visit landfills and check them out? I do it as a hobby", Ms. Cocalis said, addressing the town administrator and Board of Selectmen earlier this week. "They should look as smooth as silk. They should be at about a 2 percent grade. If you are standing where the road is and you look down to where the refuge is in our landfill, there's approximately, a 6-foot drop with all the water from up here is all going down there. We don't want that. That is really, really bad."
Ms. Cocalis, who also refers to leachate as "garbage juice," blames the open cell being in the middle of two capped cells as the main culprit for the town?s increasing leachate problem. When the town capped its second cell at the landfill in 2009, they opened a new (and its final) cell, which is in the middle of two capped cells.
Last year, an estimated 2,462,000 gallons of leachate were collected from the landfill and taken to the wastewater treatment plant a few miles away for disposal. In 2010, an estimated 555,000 gallons were collected. Ms. Cocalis said every month, the town is spending $12,000-$13,000 in removal costs.
"Every day, there's a truck going there four or five times a day," Ms. Cocalis said. "The longer we wait, the more it's going to cost."
Ms. Cocalis suggested the town look into purchasing a 3,000-gallon pumper truck to collect the leachate, conducting a cost benefit analysis of the entire operation, immediately go out to bid for leachate collection and figure out ways to mitigate the amount of leachate seeping at the landfill.
Selectmen Chairman Thomas R. Creamer said he was alarmed by the "pretty tremendous rate" the leachate is increasing and the "inexplicitly rising" costs to collect it.
?To me, the biggest concerns are to identify why there has been nearly a 100 percent (price) increase already over last year?s number for the whole year, in the first six months, and, what alternatives does the town have in trying to reduce the costs,? Mr. Creamer said. ?We can?t keep going back to the residents on a regular basis, seeking emergency fund transfers.?
Town Administrator Shaun A. Suhoski said he has discussed an "alternative model" in leachate disposal, which includes bringing the process "in-house". Furthermore, a meter system has been installed in the wastewater treatment plant that will electronically monitor the amount of leachate treated at the plant, Mr. Suhoski said.
"We wish we had a little more time to get all the parties at the table and have a plan ready before we highlighted the problem", Mr. Suhoski said. I think bringing it to the Board of Selectmen's attention is helpful so the community is aware of this. By educating the community, now we can look at options, alternatives, for cost savings. And that's the plan. That's what we're doing".
"Ten years, maybe even longer, after we close that landfill, we will still have leachate", Ms. Cocalis said. "You will have to still collect it, by law, forever and ever, until it stops making leachate. There are landfills in Rome from the Roman times that actually still make leachate today".
A hazardous waste landfill in Belleville, MI, owned by the Environmental Quality Company had a problem. They needed to develop a treatment process to remove COD, high TDS, heavy metals, phenol, PCB’s, Ammonia, and Molybdenum from the landfill leachate. Current treatment comprised of chlorination and activated carbon treatment was very costly.
Evaluation
The treatment process was challenging. The chemical treatment supplied was based upon the experience batch treating the wastewater and numerous bench scale treatability studies. An MBR process was selected for piloting because it was the best option to nitrify, reduce the high COD and phenol and overcome the potentially toxic conditions. Dynatec was engaged to supply a pilot treatment plant to be used as an investigative tool for the design of the full scale treatment process. The pilot operation phase of the project lasted almost 3 years, where problems were identified and solutions found.
Some unique challenges offered by this application were:
Foaming - Toxicity from the metals, phenol , and other unidentified substances
Mixed Liquor conditioning
Biological temperature sensitivity
Sensitive nitrification process
Difficult chemical precipitation of metals
Small footprint required
Dynatec was engaged to supply and install the full scale system because of Dynatec’s experience with the treatment technologies employed, their familiarity with the project, and the requirement for a high rate MBR process operating at high MLSS.
The Solution
Dynatec provided and installed a system that included a stainless steel insulated covered bioreactor with both heating and cooling capabilities to control temperature within a range suitable for achieving the treatment goals. To solve the foaming problem, a combination of jet aeration, defoamer, DO control, and concentrate return splash plates were employed along with an emergency potable water spray to prevent foam-over.
The membrane filtration equipment was designed to make efficient use of a small existing building that houses the membranes, controls, dewatering and other equipment.
The process includes chemical / physical treatment of the leachate both before and after the MBR. The post MBR chemical precipitation is for Molybdenum. The MBR removes compounds that were found to interfere with the precipitation process. The treated water is discharged to sanitary sewer.
A sludge tank receives the solids from both clarifiers of the pre and post chemical treatment systems as well as the WAS. Additional iron and lime is added and mixed in the sludge tank prior to feed to the filter press for dewatering. The solids are discharged within the landfill.
The Process
The process design consists of the following:
The hazardous wastewater is pretreated for removal of CN, Cr, Cu, Pb, Ni and Zn.The hazardous wastewater is mixed with non hazardous wastewater in a 500,000 gallon EQ tank to help make nitrification work. Approximately 65% of the wastewater discharged to the EQ tank is hazardous WW and 35% is non haz.The WW in the EQ tank is sent to the MBR for treatment for reduction in phenol ammonia nitrogen and COD.The MBR permeate is post treated for removal of molybdenum. The moly is apparently organically bound and does not precipitate adequately in the pretreatment.Sludge from the metals precipitation is mixed with WAS and dewatered in a filter press.
Operation
The system started up in March of 2010. As expected, the activated sludge took less than two months of conditioning before effective treatment was achieved due to the information and knowledge that was gained during piloting. A special bacterial culture was added to promote nitrification, which improved performance.
The COD of the hazardous wastewater varies significantly, typical values observed have been between 5,000 mg/L and 12,000 mg/L. After blending with non hazardous leachate the COD is typically in the range between 3,000 mg/l and 6,000 mg/l.
The system operator is able to adjust conditions as needed. The system is currently operating at high mixed liquor concentration, an average of 24,000 mg/l. The jet aeration system makes operation at this level possible. Temperature ranges from a low of 25’C in the winter to 36’C in the summer. A natural gas fired heater heats the leachate in the winter in the recirculating loop between the bioreactor and the UF. The heater runs very little as the tank is covered and insulated. The system also has the ability to cool the mixed liquor as the temperature approaches 38’C to prevent thermophilic conditions from developing.
The continuous addition of defoamer is necessary. The concentrate return hits splash plates in the reactor to create a spray of sorts to help depress foam. There is also a fresh water spray available for use that rings the top inside of the reactor.
After startup, the system is operating as designed. The operators have used the emergency potable water spray to prevent foam-over of the bioreactor a couple times, with no other major issues. The system is exceeding expectations. Phenol in the effluent is typically below 0. 1 mg/L and metals removal is consistently below discharge requirements and below toxicity levels required to protect the biological process.
Conclusion
This is a very tough job. The complete and comprehensive system that Dynatec provided made this a success, and many lessons were learned for future projects. Dynatec was the right choice for this difficult MBR application. The many years of experience Dynatec has applying membranes to wastewater has enabled it to design and provide systems that perform in even the most difficult applications.
The system payback is expected to be very short. The system is meeting all its treatment objectives.
It looks to me as if this is a simple case of municipal body which owns and runs this landfill is both gamekeeper and poacher has got into trouble, and the citizens would do best to change that situation first, rather than spend on a legal case arguing about it. Here is a quotation from the article:
The Citizens for Clean Water board of directors plans to discuss funding for a lawsuit to compel the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality to close the NABORS landfill in north Baxter County, according to CFCW president, Bob Cohee.
The CFCW board's next meeting is Feb. 7.
Cohee said Wednesday he will recommend the creation of a legal fund of at least $20,000 to move forward with the suit.
The suit, if filed, would mark the second time CFCW has called out the regulator in a court of law to enforce state regulations regarding the NABORS landfill. Cohee says the NABORS landfill has accumulated a long record of violations pertaining to overfilled areas within the landfill and a plume of pollutants seeping into sample waters taken from within and around one overfilled area.
The owner of the landfill? The Ozark Mountain Regional Solid Waste Management District ? has been trying to sell it for a year to North Arkansas Board of Regional Sanitation, an incorporation of Baxter and Marion counties and the city of Mountain Home. Investment bankers have declined to offer $17 million issue public revenue bonds to finance the transaction.
Ozark Mountain Regional Solid Waste Management District's board of directors voted Tuesday to set a March 13 deadline for the North Arkansas Board of Regional Sanitation proposal and to offer NABORS to other prospective buyers after that date.
"We are extremely opposed to privatizing," Cohee said. "The landfill is in bad enough shape as it is. Privatizing would be total havoc."
Citizens for Clean Water sued ADEQ in 1989 to compel the regulator to require former owners, RLH Inc., to stop leachate observed flowing from the side of a waste storage cell to an area of the landfill not served by a leachate retention pond. That outing resulted in a correction before the issue came to trial. CFCW's legal fee of $11,000, Cohee said.
RLH sold the landfill and a companion hauling service to Northwest Arkansas Regional Solid Waste Management District (now Ozark Mountain Regional Solid Waste Management District) for $12 million on Sept. 1, 2003, after two years of negotiations between RLH and ADEQ regarding ongoing regulatory violations.
On Sept. 23, 2005, the waste management district sought authorization to enlarge the storage area within the 700-acre tract situated 10 miles from Mountain Home's public water intake on Norfork Lake.
Several notices of violation from ADEQ between 2003-05 against RLH were settled early in 2005, with the district and RLH both signing a consent order in which RLH did not concede fault and ADEQ levied a $250,000 fine, then ADEQ's largest fine ever.
The agreement also included a corrective action plan regarding an overfilled area in the landfill which is now a five-year-old correction action plan and the subject of five failed attempts by four engineering firms to correct.
Inspectors in 2005 had found 101 inches of leachate on top of a geo-plastic liner permitted to hold only 12 inches, according to Bulletin archives.
ADEQ also has a $500,000 letter of credit from a bank guaranteeing funds to properly close the offending portion of the landfill should RLH shirk its responsibilities.
NABORS had consumed all of a $1 million line of credit from Arvest Bank when Ozark Mountain Regional Solid Waste Management District took control of the landfill in February 2009 from the Northwest Arkansas Regional Economic Development District.
NABORS finished 2008 with a deficit of $830,000 and lost another $945,000 in 2009.
Don't you often get tired of the long succession of bad news stories throughout the media? Well at the "Leachate Blog" we are delighted to bring some good news for change! The follwoing is a quote form the original article whioch appeared recently in the Little Falls Evening Times.
The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation recently reclassified the Rose Valley Landfill site as a Class 4 site on the Registry of Inactive Hazardous Waste Disposal Sites. The result is that Rose Valley Landfill site no longer considered to present threat says the Little Falls Evening Times.
As a Class 4 site, the property is no longer considered to present a significant threat to public health and/or the environment. The site is in the town of Russia, on a parcel of land between Rose Valley, Bromley and Military roads. Finch Brook runs along the side of the property. It is currently owned by the Estate of Gerald Crouch and Joyce Miller. Crouch was the owner-operator of the Rose Valley Landfill from 1963 to 1985, the time it was a hazardous waste disposal site. As a result, the site was added to the Registry of Inactive Hazardous Waste Disposal Sites as a Class 2 site in 1992. In 1998, the site was added to the State Superfund Program. The DEC was concerned about levels of 1,1,1, TCA, 1,1,1-Trichloroethane (TCA) and 1-1-Dichloroethane in the soil and groundwater. The levels of these contaminants are unknown.
Tne well from a nearby residence was contaminated. A new well was drilled in 2006 and was still uncontaminated in 2009. Remediation of the site was finished in spring 2008. It included consolidating contaminated soil on-site and placing it beneath a soil cap and erecting a fence to restrict access to the landfill.
A long-term monitoring program exists for the site which includes the collection and treatment of groundwater and leachate (water that carries in solution materials from the soil it has passed through). The site management plan and environmental easement addressed the remaining site contamination.
We quote from a news item below which is about a landfill from which leachate will be trucked out to a sewage wroks for treatment. In most coases this is more expensive than buidling a leachate treatment plant on-site (see the leachate treatment website, and the fact is that these won't be the same vehicles either. Leachate has to be transported in tanker vehicles and the waste come in in waste collection vehicles, and bulk waste trucks!
Read the following quote and you'll understand what I am saying:
Guam's new landfill hums along in Inarajan, but a plan to build a smaller landfill with a waste-to-energy incinerator continues in Santa Rita despite objections from nearby residents.
Nearly 100 people attended a passionate public hearing last night, most objecting to plans for the Guatali Municipal Solid Waste Landfill.
"We don't really need another landfill right now," said Debora Moore. "We already have a brand-new landfill. ... I'm against it and I felt like I should speak out against it."
It was short, simple criticism, but Santa Rita residents clapped and cheered when she finished. It was like that for most of the evening's testimony.
Last night's hearing was held by the Guam Environmental Protection Agency to collect comments. The agency is considering issuing a permit for Guatali landfill plans. The deadline to submit testimony is Friday.
The company behind the project is Guam Resource Recovery Partners, which plans to stockpile waste on leased GovGuam land, then start incinerating the garbage to make energy, according to an impact assessment of the project.
If Guam EPA issues a permit, the Guatali facility will be built on an 87-acre land parcel in Santa Rita, just north of Apra Heights and uphill from the Atantano River, the impact assessment states. About 22 acres of savannah would become waste storage cells, bracketed by small wetlands to the east and west, the assessment states.
The waste stored in the cells is expected to generate about 36,000 gallons of leachate daily. Some will be absorbed by filtering the leachate back through the landfill; the rest would be trucked to the wastewater treatment plant in Hag't'a, the impact assessment states.
That's how the landfill would work, trucking garbage in and trucking leachate out, for the first three to five years, by which time Guam Resource Recovery Partners hopes to have its waste-to-energy incinerator running.
The company's incinerator efforts have been wrapped up in a court battle for about a decade. If Guam Resource Recovery Partners ever gets approval for the facility, it would run for 11 months a year, the assessment states......
....The impact assessment states repeatedly the Guatali landfill is needed to close the Ordot dump, which will improve quality of life on Guam. The document was last revised in January, so it doesn't reflect that the Ordot dump has been closed for almost three months.
That begs the same question that surfaced at the Santa Rita hearing: Does Guam need two landfills?
When asked yesterday about the justification for a second landfill, Guirguis said the island didn't need two landfills. However, Guirguis insists the Guatali proposal -- not the finished landfill in Inarajan --is better for Guam.
Guirguis said the Inarajan landfill will reach its 50-year life expectancy only if GovGuam continues to build more storage cells, expanding the landfill footprint. In contrast, once the Guatali facility starts incinerating waste, it won't need to expand its landfill component, Guirguis said.
Guirguis said the Guatali landfill also is preferable because it will be cheaper than the government landfill. Tipping fees already have been increased.
Approximately 100 million tonnes of waste are disposed of each year (comprising Municipal Solid Waste and Industrial/ Commercial Wastes) at the many licensed landfill sites operating in England and Wales. However space for landfilling at these locations is due to run out in the very near future, so many people need to be told about them, so that new landfills can be planned. It will always be necessary to have some landfills. Although zero waste is a great aspirational target, at some point before zero, the law of diminishing returns will always set in, and the energy used apart from the cost of avoiding that last few percent of waste, will always make zero waste an unachievable target.
When rainfall soaks into waste in a garbage tip it slowly drains through the waste under gravity. As it does so it picks up soluble contaminants from the waste itself. This produces a very strongly organically contaminated liquid which is called leachate. Most of the contamination is biological (organic) in nature, but whatever soluble contaminants are present in the landfill, the leachate will probably also contain them in small quantities. The leachate will also have dissolved methane in it if it comes from a gassing (biogas producing or âmethanogenicâ) landfill.
If there is no base lining the leachate will drain away through any reasonably permeable material which exists under the landfill. Although this material below the landfill may do some filtering and further cleansing of the leachate, it can enter the underground strata still in a highly polluting condition. Water flowing in subterranean rock, through cracks and fissures and through any permeable material is called groundwater.
In many parts of the developed ad developing world this groundwater will be used for drinking and cooking. It will obviously be dangerous to human health for people to imbibe this flow. This will happen if and when pumped out for use from contaminated strata, or where the groundwater emerges at the surface.
Groundwater moves slowly and continuously through the open spaces in soil and rock. If a landfill contaminates groundwater, a plume of contamination will occur wherever reasonably permeable material exists below, for example a private property plot.
Any groundwater which gets polluted will still keep flowing underground and although the ground may help to naturally filter and biologically treat the leachate, eventually the pollution flow may grow and the small extent of a polluted area shown initially may later have to be extended if a growing contaminant plume develops, and nearby water resources including water supply boreholes can be contaminated. If they do they will probably remain unusable for several generations. Such a loss of something as precious as water is a terrible problem for later generations.
So, is it any wonder that environmental activists dislike landfills not only because of the potential for pollution just described, however, the more astute among them also dislike landfilling because landfills permanently remove large quantities of raw materials from economic use.
All of the energy and natural resources (such as water) that were used to process the items "wasted" are also not conserved.
Environmental Protection Agencies in many countries generally rely on the laws in their states to enforce their own operating permits and federal laws. If state agencies are not aggressive, violations can worsen, multiplying negative environmental impacts exponentially. Environmental pollution of land, air, and water created by the world's poorly-managed landfills is enormous.
In the early 21st century, alternative methods to waste disposal have been devised, including recycling, converting to biodegradable products, incineration and cogeneration facilities, and sustainable development, all of which assist in reducing global landfill pollution.
Steve Evans is an authority on landfill liabilities and Global Warming effects visit any one of the product and resource links we give here and you will not be disappointed. Landfill Problems and Global Warming Effects are just two of many issues on which we comment, plus educational and general information available free, if you visit the Landfilling Site web site.
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
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.
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
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.
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:
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.
