Landfill seepage, costs up says BoH chairman - Worcester Telegram

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".

View the original article here

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

Leachate from disused site costs ratepayers New Zealand - Northern Advocate

Give us your thoughts on this story.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

View the original article here