21 April 2011 Last updated at 13:05 Some 22 acres of the 400-acre park will be affected Part of Wrexham's largest country park will have to close after pollutants were found leaking from a former landfill site.
It makes up about 5% of Alyn Waters Country Park and was capped in 2001 but there is now evidence of leaching.
Wrexham council has warned residents the work could take two to three years to complete but said there is no risk to public or wildlife.
The eventual re-capping could cost up to £10m.
But if left, the council fears contamination of the River Alyn.
Tests show the cap is not working properly and rainwater is entering the site, producing higher than expected leachate levels.
The council said the leachate is removed regularly, but there is evidence it has "overtopped" into surrounding land at least once.
Continue reading the main story
We appreciate that this news may cause concern to those living close to the park and regular visitors”
End Quote Sarah Evans Wrexham council Of several options presented to the local authority's executive board, it decided the only "long-term sustainable solution" was to re-cap the site, which could cost between £1m-£10m.
Work will involve re-shaping the site to shed water more effectively, and installing a "geosynthetic capping layer over the existing clay".
The site - about 22 of approximately 400 acres - will be closed to the public, but the remainder will stay open.
Wrexham council said residents nearby had been informed by letter and liaison meetings will be held.
Sarah Evans, principal environment protection manager, said: "We appreciate that this news may cause concern to those living close to the park and regular visitors.
"We have undertaken to keep them informed and up to date as work progresses.
"We will also work closely with colleagues in the environment department and external advisors to safeguard the ecology of the area and to ensure the site is returned to its former state."
A contractor is now being sought. View the original article here
The GHMC has been dumping about 3,800 metric tonnes (MTs) of garbage daily in the 750-acre dump yard located about 35 kms from the city for the past few years.
Many villages like Haridaspally, Dammaiguda, Nagaram, which are located close to Jawaharnagar dump yard, have been facing ground water pollution due to continuous dumping over the years.
A few months ago, residents of Cheryala village in Keesara mandal had complained to Lokayukta that the lake in their village `Pedda Chervu' was getting polluted due to the leachate of Jawaharnagar.
Officials said Pedda Chervu is located in the downstream of Malkapur tank, which is close to Jawaharnagar. As leachate of Jawaharnagar was polluting Malkapur tank, water flowing into Pedda Chervu is also getting polluted.
After people complained of water pollution, the GHMC officials, a couple of months ago, had stopped inflows into Pedda Chervu by forming an earthen bund below the Jawaharnagar dump yard to ensure that the leachate does not enter the Malkapur tank.
Since the Pedda Chervu water had already got polluted, the Lokayukta has directed the GHMC to drain out water from the lake. Now, this has become a herculean task for the corporation officials as the tank is under the control of the minor irrigation department. GHMC officials approached the irrigation officials, who in turn sought instructions from the Ranga Reddy district collector.
The district collector did not give permission reportedly due to resentment from other villagers of Rampally, Kundapally and Godumpally, who are down streams of Pedda Chervu. The villagers expressed fear that the drained out lake water from Pedda Chervu might enter their lakes and tanks.
The water pollution in and around Jawaharnagar triggered huge protests three years ago. Villagers of Haridaspally and other villages had staged a dharna and even stopped garbage vehicles proceeding to Jawaharnagar as the dumping yard was not only causing ground water pollution but also roads were getting damaged due to heavy traffic. The GHMC assured them of laying roads, drinking water supply and street lights and other facilities.
While the roads and other facilities were provided, the GHMC recently paid about Rs 2.45 crore to the Hyderabad Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board to supply piped water to the villages of Dammaiguda, Nagaram, Haridaspally, Ahmedguda and Cheriyal apart from Jawaharnagar.
When contacted, GHMC executive engineer D Sudhakar said they have inspected the area on the directions of the Lokayukta and were taking necessary steps for preventing water pollution.
WHILE Malaysians are busy worrying about whether radiation-contaminated seawater surrounding Japan's nuclear disaster zone is going to wash onto Malaysian shores, or whether radiation-contaminated food from Japan is going to get past Customs inspections and be consumed by unsuspecting foodies, the fact is, the health of Malaysians have long been at risk of contamination by poisons contributed by leachate from our own landfills.
The poisons, including heavy metals like mercury, leach into groundwater and flow into our rivers, contaminating riverwater and the eco-system that depends on it. If the leach goes undetected, the poisons will flow into our body through the water, fish and shellfish that we consume.
Who is responsible for this insidious poisoning of the people? We are.
Every person who has ever thrown a dry cell battery (like the ones used in torchlights and television remote controls), a fluorescent tube, handphone batteries and other hazardous e-waste like computers, televisions and printers into their household dustbin has contributed to this potential poisoning of the people. Broken or crushed fluorescent tubes leak out mercury gas; dry cells leak out heavy metals. This e-waste, which is scheduled waste, cannot be thrown into an ordinary dustbin, cannot be picked up by an ordinary rubbish-collection lorry, and should not end up on a normal rubbish heap at a normal landfill which is not equipped to deal with leachate.
And yet, every day, more than 42 tonnes of such hazardous e-waste is thrown out together with ordinary household waste.
It is not enough for consumers to know their rights; they must also take responsibility for what they consume, and this includes how they dispose of what they have consumed. But it is one thing to educate the consumer about separating their rubbish; it is another thing altogether to make sure that the rubbish stays separated. Besides building more sanitary landfills with leachate treatment facilities, the government needs to set laws which require e-waste to be compulsorily recycled.
In June 1998, the Japanese government enacted a Home Appliance Recycling Law, in which all white goods were required to be cannibalised and their components recycled. The responsibility for this is borne by the consumer, who pays a compulsory up-front collection charge at the time of purchase, and the manufacturer, who must collect the used product later in the future and recycle it. No government subsidy is involved, as the role of the government is to provide direction to the public to take responsibility for their consumer habits.
Since Malaysia intends to make separation of rubbish at the source for household goods compulsory in 2013, it is only fair that this should be followed through with a plan for how to keep this waste separate.
Sanitary landfills are the most widely utilized method of solid waste disposal around the world. With increased use and public awareness of this method of disposal, there is much concern with respect to the pollution potential of the landfill leachate.
Depending on the composition and extent of decomposition of the refuse and hydrological factors, the leachate may become highly contaminated. As leachate migrates away from a landfill, it may cause serious pollution to the groundwater aquifer as well as adjacent surface waters.
Above video is not associated with the text. However, we thought you may find it of interest.
There is growing concern about surface and groundwater pollution from leachate. Better understanding and prediction of leachate generation, containment, and treatment are needed. This book contains a literature review of various methodologies that have been developed for prediction, generation, characterization, containment, control, and treatment of leachate from sanitary landfills. The contents of this book are divided into nine chapters.
Each chapter contains theory and definition of the important design parameters, literature review, example calculations, and references.
Chapter 1 is devoted to basic facts of solid waste problems current status and future trends towards waste reduction and recycling.
Chapter 2 provides a general overview of municipal solid waste generation, collection, transport, resource recovery and reuse, and disposal options. The current status of sanitary landfill design and operation, problems associated with the landfilling, and future trends are presented in
Chapter 3. Methods of enhanced stabilization, recycling landfill space, methane recovery, and above grade landfilling, and closure and post closure care of completed landfills are also discussed in detail.
Chapter 4 provides a general overview of Subtitle D regulations and its impact upon sanitary landfilling practices.
Chapter 5 is devoted entirely to moisture routing and leachate generation mechanisms. Examples of calculation procedure for determining the leachate quantity produced at a landfill are presented.
Chapter 6 is devoted to chemical characterization of leachate that changes over the life of the fill. Both theoretical and experimental results are provided to estimate the leachate quality.
Chapter 7 provides leachate attenuation processes and mechanisms.
Chapter 8 is devoted to leachate collection systems. Natural soil sealants, admixed materials and synthetic membranes, their effectiveness, and methods of installation and economics are fully discussed.
Chapter 9 provides a detailed review of leachate treatment methodology.
Kinetic coefficients and treatment plant design considerations are summarized for the sole purpose of assisting consultants to design leachate treatment facilities. Leachate treatment case histories and numerous process trains are presented for treating leachate from young landfill. The book also describes how the process train can be changed effectively as leachate quality changes with time.
Disposing of solids waste to landfill is regarded as one of the most economical means of handling waste though landfills pose pollution threat to both ground and surface water resources. However, landfill liners and good landfill management practices may reduce the impact of water contamination by landfills.
The above video is not associated with the article text. However, we thought our readers might also be interested in this video.
Chemical analysis of groundwater beneath and near two landfills from New Zealand and Lesotho (in Southern Africa) showed that there are higher concentrations of chemicals such as Chlorides, TDS and COD than average. The water was also found to contain higher amounts of heavy metals.
High concentrations of chemical constituents, such as those found in leachate contaminated water may cause various health complications in humans if consumed.
To minimize possible hazards due to landfill leachate, future landfills must be lined at the base and sides by a combination of clay, geosynthetic clay and high-density polyethylene liners.
Landfill Leachate and landfill gas are the main landfill hazards which waste disposal to land imposes the environment. We will discuss both in this article. Landfill leachate is the name given to water that has passed through solid waste and contains organic and mineral contaminants. Therefore this effluent must be treated before discharge to the environment. Landfill leachate is a major concern for landfill sites located in close proximity to agricultural land, waterways and the public domain. The leachate and runoff from the site is directed to, and stored in, on-site leachate ponds. Landfill leachate is a notoriously complex substance to deal with, primarily because of its ever-changing composition. In recent years, biological treatment in Sequencing Batch Reactors (SBRs), and engineered wetland systems have proven that they can play a valuable role in leachate treatment.
The above video is not associated with the text article.
Landfill leachate is harmful for the environment if it escapes from landfills, and can even be highly toxic due to its high strength of contamination.
Generally, PAC addition after biological treatment and settlement can be used for leachate treatment, and can sometimes have a pronounced effect on organic carbon removal (BOD and COD). PAC alone is not adequate as the ammoniacal nitrogen in leachate is not removed by PAC addition.
In hot arid climates, the removal of just the organic content from a highly polluted drainage (such as landfill leachate) may not be sufficient for treatment where discharge is made to land or into a watercourse. This is because of the high concentrations of salts and other inorganic pollutants from the leachate into the natural water cycle, even at low concentrations, may lead to bio-accumulation. That is there may not be enough winter rainfall to flush the summer salt build-up away before the next spring. Such a situation would amount to a growing potential of environmental pollution in the resultant ecosystems which receive the discharge of treated leachate.
In many wetter areas however, biological leachate treatment will be perfectly adequate, and is a much lower cost option and generally uses far less energy than the more sophisticated systems used where saline build-up is a concern.
However, extracting leachate from landfills will be essential to control leachate levels and many have experienced difficulties in doing that. The fact is that landfill leachate is pretty tough to pump.". Electric centrifugal pumps continue to manage the liquids at many landfills, and do very well to keep the methane production at peak volume to realize the site's projected energy goals.
However, they do present certain concerns with regard to their design ATEX compliance and the possibility of landfill gas explosions , and therefore most large landfill operators have moved to pneumatic leachate extraction pumping systems. These can also be very readily fitted within retro-drilled borehole wells, as combined leachate extraction and gas extraction wells.
Every landfill is an engineering project with an engineered leachate management system. Any landfill liner is part of the system. The system should be designed to accommodate a range of seepage rates from very low (the best containment that can be achieved) to high (a controlled form of dilute and attenuate) depending on the degree of environmental protection needed at that site.
Many guidance documents or statutory assessment methods use absolute terms such as "total containment", "prevention of leachate and landfill gas migration", or "impermeable". These terms can lead to the erroneous belief that such concepts are achievable, and that failure to do so is indicative of poor materials or workmanship.
Landfill Problems - A Landfill Site Anatomy - kewego http://landfill-site.com/html/landfills__environmental_probl.php Landfill problems. Landfill lining requirements, capping and landfill restoration described. Protect the environment and groundwater.
Consideration of material properties demonstrates that, as all materials have a finite permeability, some finite seepage is inevitable.
For example, the frequently quoted requirements for one metre of clay with a maximum permeability of 10-9 m/s and a maximum leachate head of 1 metre implies, using Darcy's Law, a seepage rate of 1.7 m^/d/ha, and yet it is commonly referred to as the provision of "total containment".
Actual flow rates are affected by a range of ameliorating and aggregating factors. Calculation of actual seepage rates is complex, and should be carried out using risk assessment methodology carried out to a recognized methodology.
For gases, viscosity and diffusion characteristics must be taken into account. In general, mineral liners on their own are not usually effective barriers against gas migration, though they can be useful components of a multi-barrier system.
Measurements of hydraulic conductivity are of little relevance in respect to gas, as gas is able to pass through a barrier at a rate several orders of magnitude greater than that which may be measured for water.
All materials will allow the passage of liquids to an extent determined by their permeability. Risk assessment methodology will quantify the probability distribution for a derived seepage rate for a given liner/landfill situation.
This should be used either to assess the probable impact on the receiving source, or to determine the performance specification for the liner and landfill operational methods. In this way, an appropriate liner specification can be derived, incorporating a suitable safety margin.
Excessive over-engineering should be avoided, as this can itself may be considered to contravene the principles of sustainable development.
The statement we have made regarding the fact that flow through landfill containment systems will never be absolutely zero and will be a quantifiable small amount, cannot be refuted. It is a rigorously scientific approach to adopt this principle.
However, the concept of the fact that a seepage through a liner is acceptable has been resisted by some, and in particular can appear to be in conflict with the EC Groundwater Directive.
However, in certain circumstances, the discharge into the unsaturated zone of leachates containing List II substances (as defined by the EC Groundwater Directive) is permissible, provided that prior investigation has shown that this will be satisfactory and not significantly impact upon the environment.
Around the globe the primary concern will be to ensure the protection of groundwater, so for example in the EU landfill acceptability is classified by type within zones of travel time to a water source, and within resource protection areas.
Landfills are accepted as suitable for development when subject to adequate risk assessed engineered containment and operational safeguards.
Author Steve Evans has been writing about landfill daily cover and many other aspects of practical waste and secondary resource management since 2006. As you have been reading this article, there is a fair chance that you may enjoy his blog. We recommend a visit now!
Did you know that roughly 57 percent of all trash winds up in the over 7500 US landfills yearly according to the US EPA? Do you realize that trash production has nearly tripled since 1960? We certainly do live in a society that has adopted a disposable mentality! How many times have you heard somebody say, "Just go buy a new one?" When what they have could be repaired or reconditioned.
The danger to everyone on planet earth with this disposable mentality of ours is that all of our landfills emit harmful leachate gases that can become comingled with our water supply. Many older landfills do not have liners, leachate collection systems or groundwater monitoring systems. These dangerous gases are created when weather, humidity and non organic materials (plastics, phytochemicals) are compressed and aged together. (www.ejnet.org/rachel/rhwn231.htm) Also landfill land is not easily reclaimable for other uses due to the overcontamination of pollutants. If we keep needing to create more landfills for our trash, then soon we will be struggling for good natural land to build on or use for open spaces.
How can you help to change this dangerous and concerning consumer course? You can purchase organic, sustainable and renewable consumer goods. Goods made from organic or sustainable materials are easily recyclable or composted and does not go "toxic" when breaking down. A good example is 100% organic cotton clothing. It makes good logic that since the clothing is made from only naturally occurring plants that the cloth will easily return to the earth in a positive manner. Each stage of this product's life cycle is sustainable and minimizes negative impact on the earth and environment.
What assurance do you have that a product is "green", "organic" or "earth friendly"? Luckily there are standards in place and certain labeling that you can look for. Here is website that explains each type of labeling now available http://mts.sustainableproducts.com/standards.htm . Remember, each time you buy something you vote with your purchase! If we all choose to buy more sustainable products we can reduce pollution, the landfill problem and create a healthier, more productive living environment!
Khrom Chen Virtual Mall is a unique online shopping center that carries a variety of green, organic, sustainable, earth friendly and eco friendly products. We also carry a variety of products that support a healthy lifestyle, and personal enrichment products.
Visit the Green Monk Blog for more Environmental Articles and Consumer Recalls at [http://www.khromchen.com/kchblog.html] Visit Khrom Chen Organic Mall to shop for green, oraganic, eco & earth friendly products at [http://www.khromchen.com] We have weekly Specials, Coupons & Discounts on everything you need.
Leachate can be any water that once it has drained through a medium takes up chemicals and solid materials during its passage. The term leachate is most often used in connection with landfills. Landfill leachate is contaminated 'dirty' water that is produced when rainwater comes into contact with waste materials on the area of the landfill. It contains a large number of different contaminants, probably the most significant of which is ammonia.
The second most common type of leachate encountered is the black odorous run-off from manure heaps and from some composting facilities.
If leachate is allowed to leak from a landfill it will usually cause pollution both locally around the waste, and it may form a plume of contamination within groundwaters it enters and a plume of groundwater pollution may move away from the landfill over time to contaminate wells and any drinking water taken from them.
Leachate forms from both the combination of liquids that are dumped in a tip or landfill, and liquids that form through decomposition of wastes, as precipitation filters through the wastes. It is a liquid which is mostly organically contaminated but which will also contain low levels of most of the liquids disposed of in the landfill from which it emanates.
Sometimes leachate can be produced by a landfill, which is sealed by a low permeability capping layer. That is normally the result of a rise in pressure on the landfill when additional loads are placed on the landfill forcing compression of the structure or the presence of excess water.
Leachate is produced by the percolation of precipitation through a landfill (from rainfall and snowmelt) once it penetrates the landfill's daily, intermediate, or final cover. However, the quantity that penetrates a well vegetated cover is lower than many expect, due to the evaporation from the surface, which will include the transpiration from the leaves of he foliage on he surface.
As the water passes vertically downward through the waste mass, it comes into contact with the waste, picking up chemical contaminants and biological impurities as it goes, and the deeper the waste he stronger it gets. It also gets stronger if it stands from a long while in the waste which is not highly surprising.
There are two main types of leachate produced in landfills which contain biological municipal solid waste (MSW). These are known as acetogenic leachate and methanogenic leachate. The methanogenic type is often black in color always smelly and may smell of bad eggs. Methanogenic only has only a slight smell and is brown or golden colored.
Acetogenic leachate is the young leachate which is produced in a landfill first. It has a very high Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD) which can be as high as hundreds of thousands of milligrams per litre for short periods, soon after the cells of he organic waste break open or "lyse" and the complex compounds which make up live cell tissue drain out of the cells.
The demand for oxygen in a modern quite rapidly filled landfill, is so intense that within a few months of deposition a new cell of waste will lack oxygen within the airspaces. Oxygen will be present in the waste which is then said to be in an anoxic condition.
Over time the original oxygen in the waste and in the leachate becomes depleted as biological fermentation proceeds, and at some point ancient bacteria which have always been present in airless bogs and swamps and lie dormant in our environment multiply and take over the reaction within he waste. These are known as methanogenic bacteria. Why are they called that? Well, it is simple really! They produce the gas known as methane!
All that brings me around to the point where I can now define methanogenic leachate. Yes. You have guessed it. Methanogenic leachate is the leachate that is produce by a methane producing anaerobic landfill. By the time it has become methanogenic however, the process of decomposition by fermentation has reduced the COD to quite possibly 1/100 th of its maximum value, or even 1/1000 th.
However, the leachate is hardly any less toxic to aquatic life, because the ammonia present in dissolved and gaseous forms remains high, and thus as we stated earlier is one of the most important contaminants in leachate.
That is the story of leachate from young (acetogenic) to old (methanogenic).
Visit Steve Last's web site for Part 2 of this article at The Leachate Web Site. he is an expert on leachate treatment and has been designing and building leachate treatment plants for more than 20 years.
Leachate is the liquid produced when water percolates through any permeable material. Silage leachate is a form of leachate which is a serious environmental problem, however, when people refer to leachate they are usually talking about the contaminated water that is produced by water percolating through waste.
Leachate is produced when water filters downward through a landfill, and as it does so it picks up dissolved materials from the decomposing wastes. Depending on characteristics of the landfill and the wastes it contains, the leachate may vary from being relatively harmless or extremely toxic.
Landfills with low permeability daily cover, in wet and high rainfall climates with high slopes (less than 20 to 1) are particularly susceptible. Leachate seeps also are possible if operators use recirculation to return concentrates from, for example, RO systems and we have known seeps to be particularly persistent where systems are inadvertently placed over well-compacted, former haul roads.
Landfill leachate can also be defined as liquid that leaks from a landfill and enters the environment. This liquid may either exist in the landfill as deposited, or it may be created after rainwater mixes with the chemical waste in in a landfill.
Landfill leachate quality varies as a function of many factors including waste type, waste depth, time, weather, and landfill operations.
Designed to hold our garbage and to prevent it from contaminating our soil and our drinking water, the modern landfill has become a highly technical and complex structure. Contrary to what many might think, a landfill is not just a pile of garbage. Because these landfills are designed not to let the leachate escape and pollute the surrounding ground the landfills hold the leachate for a long while before it can descend through the waste and be removed from the bottom. This means that the modern landfill produces some of the strongest and most contaminated leachate waters ever produced anywhere.
Treatment of this polluted water is a complex task due to its nature. A typical leachate is highly contaminated with ammonia, organic contaminants, halogenated hydrocarbons and some heavy metals (although this can be overstated in leachate from modern well controlled landfills). Also, leachates commonly hold high concentrations of inorganic salts.
Treatment lagoons and leachate ponds are a method of leachate management, but they are usually ineffective fall all but the freshest and weakest landfill leachates.
In dry climates and arid areas, removal of the organic content from a highly polluted drainage (such as landfill leachate) is not sufficient. This is because of introducing the salts and other inorganic pollutants from the leachate into the natural water cycle, even at minimal concentrations, can lead to bio-accumulation (a growing potential of environmental pollution) in the resultant ecosystems which receive the discharge of treated leachate.
Additionally, although the biodegradability of leachate organic compounds declines with time, complex organic compounds, such as humic substances and manufactured chemical compounds, remain in solution.
Biological treatment is the most favourable procedure that should be used for leachate treatment, and biological treatment should also be used in those cases when chemical/physical treatment is also required. Biological leachate treatment is a relatively low cost process in which organics are degraded mainly to carbon dioxide, water, and biomass.
All those substances that are been eliminated using a pre-treatment of biological degradation no longer have to be treated by means of the much higher cost chemical/physical procedures available.
As the landfill age increases the treatment of the leachate it produces will mainly focus on the nitrification of ammonia. Biological denitrification can then be achieved subsequently when an external organic substrate is added to the leachate.
It is important to stress that the design criteria for sewage treatment plants cannot be used for this polluted water. For the design and operation of biological leachate treatment plants specific points have to be respected and a leachate treatment process expert is essential. For many adopting the advice of sewage treatment experts for leachate-treatment has resulted in inappropriate process designs, and wasted money, time and effort.
For leading world class expertise in leachate treatment visit the top leachate web site. These guys have built the biggest and most complex biological leachate treatment plants in the world to treat the strongest and most difficult to treat leachates found anywhere.
It's important to know that worm tea (also known as vermicast tea) is different from what a worm leachate is. Vermicast tea is basically a mixture that has been brewed, aerated, and blended with molasses.
This product then becomes the food source for the microbial life that is present in the brew. Leachate on the other hand is what you usually find at the base of the worm bin. It is basically the liquid that drips out from the composter (usually a tray underneath the bin helps contain the drippings).
The above guest video is not associated with the author. However, we though it would be of interest to our readers.
Now, never mistake the run-off from the worm composter as worm tea. Remember that it's the leachate that drips out of the worm composting bin. This organic compost tea from worms castings are made through aerated water, while the leachate is something that's already been made available. But you've got to take note that having a leachate isn't always a good thing. It might actually indicate that your bin might be in a very wet situation.
So, if there's too much water dripping from the bin, then you might have to check on your worms right away. You can't afford to lose your compost worms from drowning, wouldn't you? But if it does happen, you can resolve this situation by putting in some newspaper strips, so that these may be able to absorb the excess water inside the bin. There's also one more solution to this, and that's purchasing a worm composter that has a spigot attached on the base.
Basically aerated compost tea from worm castings is brewed using chlorine-free water. A bubbler is usually left inside the container (for where the tea is being made) to help aerate the mixture; and is then left to ferment for about 48 hours. This will help keep the aerobic microbes to grow and keep thriving. Now as soon as the worm compost tea is done, the brew itself should be used right away so that your garden soil and plants may be able to fully benefit from it. It can get spoiled almost immediately too.
If you must know, worm castings fertilizer tea is full of aerobic microbes. So expect the opposite out of a leachate as it contains nothing but anaerobic life forms (has a low population of microorganisms). So if you want a good fertilizer source for your garden, then you should choose to use your worm tea option. Never use the latter as it will do no good to your soil and plants.
If you want to harvest castings from worms, and be able to brew your own worm tea, then choose to buy worms at Gardenworms.com. They supply vermicomposting worms at very affordable packages.
While recycling is certainly more prevalent these days; we are also consuming a lot more and therefore generating more waste per person (on average) than we were a couple of decades ago.
The above video is not associated with the text of article but we thought the video would add interest to this page.
Something most of us can do to minimize the amount of garbage we send to landfills is to compost our organic waste such as newspapers, vegetable waste and cardboard - even coffee grinds and eggshells. There's a very easy way to do so that has minimal smell, doesn't take up much space, can chew through a heck of a lot of waste quickly and leave you with a very valuable product.
The workers you'll need to assist you are worms and the process is called vermicomposting.
Our worms, collectively known as "Bob II" have been working hard for us for a couple of years now. They require minimal care, are quiet, never go on strike and incredibly cheap to maintain. Even setting up a worm farm isn't terribly expensive; our ready-made farm cost $50 and the initial worms about $15. Since starting a worm farm we've cut down on the amount of waste we'd usually bin by at least 25%. Over a year that translates into hundreds of pounds.
Our worms spend their entire lives eating our trash, stopping only to reproduce. As far as I know, worms don't even "sleep". A pound of worms (around 4,000) can eat half a pound of organic material in 24 hours!
What's left after their digestion, called castings, is one of the best and safest fertilizers around. It's also ph neutral meaning that it's halfway between acidic and alkalinic - just like water. Castings feel and smell like good soil because effectively that's all they are; in fact, it's said that worm castings are 5 times richer in nutrients than good topsoil.
Castings aren't the only valuable product created, a fluid called leachate that seeps through the material the worms digest is also highly prized. Brown in color, it has no odor to speak of,
"Worm tea", another non-smelly popular worm by-product is made by soaking worm castings in water.
So, what can you feed your worms?
coffee grounds paper cardboard including egg cartons vegetable peelings and waste eggshells The general rule of thumb is if it the waste is plant based, worms can deal with it; with a couple of exceptions; being:
pineapple - contains an enzyme that will dissolve the worms citrus and highly acidic vegetables such as onions (ok in small amounts) green grass clippings should be added sparingly as large amounts generate excess heat and produce ammonia which will kill the worms You can purchase worm farms at most hardware stores or make one yourself.
You'll need:
A plastic tub with a lid A pan for leachate runoff Spacers to place between the tub and the catchment pan All you need to do then is to drill a series of small holes in the walls of the tub to allow air to circulate and holes in the bottom to allow for drainage. Don't be too concerned about worms escaping as they don't like the light. If worms are escaping, it means there is something wrong with the farm; either too dry, too damp or too acidic. You never have to worry about your worms overpopulating as they will self-regulate reproduction. The more waste that's available, the more the worms will reproduce; but bear in mind don't "overfeed" in the early stages while your population is getting established.
To start your worm farm off:
Place a layer of small pebbles in the bottom to assist with drainage Add a couple of loose layers of damp newspaper, building it up to a inch or so thick Then it's just a case of adding waste as it becomes available. The worms will then chew their way up through the material leaving their castings behind. When your tub is full and you can fit no more waste in, don't start pushing it down as you'll most likely crush your composting pals. Remove the layer of waste and a few inches of castings as this will contain most of your worms.
With what's left, put it to one side for use on your garden, add the scraps and worms back in and you're all set to go again. If you purchase a large worm farm, you'll find that most have removable panels at the bottom of the sides to allow for easy removal of castings. It's kinder on the worms and less mess for you as well.
For castings and leachate, while you can use them as is without dilution, the recommended mix is one part leachate/castings to 4 parts soil or water.
Other vermicomposting tips.
Use proper composting worms; garden worms won't be effective Never add any sort of animal products to the farm, including dairy Waste mix should be kept moist, not too dry or wet. A sign of mix that's too wet is a methane or ammonia type odor and worms trying to escape Dampen paper and cardboard products before adding Keep the farm in a shady place Worm farming is cheap, easy, fun and beneficial to the environment. Experience the satisfaction of vermicomposting; I highly recommend it!
Michael Bloch is the author and owner of Green Living Tips.com, an online resource powered by renewable energy offering a wide variety of earth friendly tips, green guides, advice and environment related news to help consumers and business to reduce costs, consumption and environmental impact on the planet.
Sanitary landfills are the most widely utilized method of solid waste disposal around the world. With increased use and public awareness of this method of disposal, there is much concern with respect to the pollution potential of the landfill leachate. Depending on the composition and extent of decomposition of the refuse and hydrological factors, the leachate may become highly contaminated. As leachate migrates away from a landfill, it may cause serious pollution to the groundwater aquifer as well as adjacent surface waters.
There is growing concern about surface and groundwater pollution from leachate. Better understanding and prediction of leachate generation, containment, and treatment are needed. This book contains a literature review of various methodologies that have been developed for prediction, generation, characterization, containment, control, and treatment of leachate from sanitary landfills. The contents of this book are divided into nine chapters. Each chapter contains theory and definition of the important design parameters, literature review, example calculations, and references. Chapter 1 is devoted to basic facts of solid waste problems current status and future trends towards waste reduction and recycling.
Chapter 2 provides a general overview of municipal solid waste generation, collection, transport, resource recovery and reuse, and disposal options. The current status of sanitary landfill design and operation, problems associated with the landfilling, and future trends are presented in Chapter 3. Methods of enhanced stabilization, recycling landfill space, methane recovery, and above grade landfilling, and closure and post closure care of completed landfills are also discussed in detail.
Chapter 4 provides a general overview of Subtitle D regulations and its impact upon sanitary landfilling practices. Chapter 5 is devoted entirely to moisture routing and leachate generation mechanisms. Examples of calculation procedure for determining the leachate quantity produced at a landfill are presented. Chapter 6 is devoted to chemical characterization of leachate that changes over the life of the fill. Both theoretical and experimental results are provided to estimate the leachate quality. Chapter 7 provides leachate attenuation processes and mechanisms.
Chapter 8 is devoted to leachate collection systems. Natural soil sealants, admixed materials and synthetic membranes, their effectiveness, and methods of installation and economics are fully discussed. Chapter 9 provides a detailed review of leachate treatment methodology. Kinetic coefficients and treatment plant design considerations are summarized for the sole purpose of assisting con- sultants to design leachate treatment facilities. Leachate treatment case histories and numerous process trains are presented for treating leachate from young landfill. The book also describes how the process train can be changed effectively as leachate quality changes with time.
Sanitary landfills are the most widely utilized method of solid waste disposal around the world. With increased use and public awareness of this method of disposal, there is much concern with respect to the pollution potential of the landfill leachate. Depending on the composition and extent of decomposition of the refuse and hydrological factors, the leachate may become highly contaminated. As leachate migrates away from a landfill, it may cause serious pollution to the groundwater aquifer as well as adjacent surface waters. T
here is growing concern about surface and groundwater pollution from leachate. Better understanding and prediction of leachate generation, containment, and treatment are needed. This book contains a literature review of various methodologies that have been developed for prediction, generation, characterization, containment, control, and treatment of leachate from sanitary landfills. The contents of this book are divided into nine chapters. Each chapter contains theory and definition of the important design parameters, literature review, example calculations, and references. Chapter 1 is devoted to basic facts of solid waste problems current status and future trends towards waste reduction and recycling. C
hapter 2 provides a general overview of municipal solid waste generation, collection, transport, resource recovery and reuse, and disposal options. The current status of sanitary landfill design and operation, problems associated with the landfilling, and future trends are presented in Chapter 3. Methods of enhanced stabilization, recycling landfill space, methane recovery, and above grade landfilling, and closure and post closure care of completed landfills are also discussed in detail. Chapter 4 provides a general overview of Subtitle D regulations and its impact upon sanitary landfilling practices. Chapter 5 is devoted entirely to moisture routing and leachate generation mechanisms.
Examples of calculation procedure for determining the leachate quantity produced at a landfill are presented. Chapter 6 is devoted to chemical characterization of leachate that changes over the life of the fill. Both theoretical and experimental results are provided to estimate the leachate quality. Chapter 7 provides leachate attenuation processes and mechanisms. Chapter 8 is devoted to leachate collection systems. Natural soil sealants, admixed materials and synthetic membranes, their effectiveness, and methods of installation and economics are fully discussed.
Chapter 9 provides a detailed review of leachate treatment methodology. Kinetic coefficients and treatment plant design considerations are summarized for the sole purpose of assisting con- sultants to design leachate treatment facilities. Leachate treatment case histories and numerous process trains are presented for treating leachate from young landfill. The book also describes how the process train can be changed effectively as leachate quality changes with time.
FROM THE PREFACESanitary landfills are the most widely utilized method of solid waste disposal around the world. With increased use and public awareness of this method of disposal, there is much concern with respect to the pollution potential of the landfill leachate. Depending on the composition and extent of decomposition of the refuse and hydrological factors, the leachate may become highly contaminated. As leachate migrates away from a landfill, it may cause serious pollution to the groundwater aquifer as well as adjacent surface waters. There is growing concern about surface and groundwater pollution from leachate. Better understanding and prediction of leachate generation, containment, and treatment are needed.
This book contains a literature review of various methodologies that have been developed for prediction, generation, characterization, containment, control, and treatment of leachate from sanitary landfills. The contents of this book are divided into nine chapters. Each chapter contains theory and definition of the important design parameters, literature review, example calculations, and references. Chapter 1 is devoted to basic facts of solid waste problems current status and future trends towards waste reduction and recycling. Chapter 2 provides a general overview of municipal solid waste generation, collection, transport, resource recovery and reuse, and disposal options.
The current status of sanitary landfill design and operation, problems associated with the landfilling, and future trends are presented in Chapter 3. Methods of enhanced stabilization, recycling landfill space, methane recovery, and above grade landfilling, and closure and post closure care of completed landfills are also discussed in detail. Chapter 4 provides a general overview of Subtitle D regulations and its impact upon sanitary landfilling practices. Chapter 5 is devoted entirely to moisture routing and leachate generation mechanisms.
Examples of calculation procedure for determining the leachate quantity produced at a landfill are presented. Chapter 6 is devoted to chemical characterization of leachate that changes over the life of the fill. Both theoretical and experimental results are provided to estimate the leachate quality. Chapter 7 provides leachate attenuation processes and mechanisms.
Chapter 8 is devoted to leachate collection systems. Natural soil sealants, admixed materials and synthetic membranes, their effectiveness, and methods of installation and economics are fully discussed. Chapter 9 provides a detailed review of leachate treatment methodology. Kinetic coefficients and treatment plant design considerations are summarized for the sole purpose of assisting con- sultants to design leachate treatment facilities. Leachate treatment case histories and numerous process trains are presented for treating leachate from young landfill. The book also describes how the process train can be changed effectively as leachate quality changes with time.
Treatment of landfill leachate is a challenge specially to the developing countries in the process of protecting their environment due to unaffordability of the available technologies. This study, Advanced oxidation combined with Membrane Bio- reactor (MBR) is an effort to achieve better treatment technique. It focuses on reduced need for infrastructure and smaller foot print of treatment facility by using MBR technology to perform activated sludge process. The subsequent advanced oxidation by ozone facilitates further treatment. Leachate of average age was preteated and fed into a laboratory MBR treatment module. Pretreatment efficiency and the change of MBR efficiency by recirculating the ozonated effluent were studied.
Steve Bossotti, Covanta’s Vice President, Supervisor Mark Lesko and Rick Sandner, Covanta’s Vice President Regional Business Manager. Town of Brookhaven
Earlier in the month, the City of Brookhaven voted collectively on a resolution moved to modify a community solid waste and ash disposal agreement with Covanta Hempstead Company.
The plan allows them them to accept and transport roughly 9,000,000 gallons of leachate each year from the Brookhaven City Rubbish heap . Covanta incinerates borough solid waste to generate salable electricity and will use the leachate as "slaking water" to extinguish ash residue so it's no longer capable of combustion or ignition, according to the City . The move will save Brookhaven virtually $500,000 over the next 4 years, Supervisor Mark Lesko said. "I advocate our waste product management team for doing such an excellent job in building more strategies for the city to save cash during these tricky business times," he added.
Leachate is liquid that moves thru or drains from a landfill.
The most typical source is rainwater filtering down thru the landfill. This liquid is treated in the same way to sewage, and then safely released into the environment. According to the city officers, the Brookhaven Dump produces between 18,000,000 tons and twenty-seven million tons of leachate a year on account of the standard operation of the rubbish heap and Covanta Hempstead has found it's of acceptable quality to "slake" ash during its resource recovery process. "The Brookhaven Dump serves as an example across the industry of how a waste product management facility can be run more effectively and with the smallest amount of result on the environment ".
Councilman Tim Mazzei said. "We have the largest municipal landfill site on Long Island and it's important that we continue to lead the way."
The program also helps Convanta.
"The leachate will be utilized at our Hempstead energy-from-waste facility and consequently cut our annual usage of ground water by an equivalent amount," said Rick Sandner, Vice President Regional Business Manager of Covanta. "Good for the Town, good for us and good for the environment."
The Town of Brookhaven accepts post combustion ash, and other non-hazardous materials into its landfill from various companies and this year will receive over 217,000 tons of post combustion ash residue from Covanta Hempstead.
The revenue that the Town of Brookhaven will derive from the company for accepting ash in 2010 is expected to exceed $11.5 million, Town officials said.
Riverkeeper has filed a legal petition forcing the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to take action on a rule that sets the standards for how toxic cement kiln dust (CKD) is managed by cement producers around the country.
This byproduct of cement manufacturing is often dumped into unlined landfills and old quarries, causing toxic leachate to foul groundwater and surface water. The proposed rule was published in 1999, but due to unyielding pressure from the cement industry, has languished for nearly 11 years, according to Riverkeeper. As a result, no federal standards for CKD disposal exist today.
“In New York and around the country, these unlined landfills ooze toxic leachate and devastate the environment,” said Josh Verleun, Riverkeeper chief investigator and staff attorney. “Through our action, we are seeking to force the creation of federal standards for the disposal of CKD, a substance that when mixed with groundwater, can result in a heavy-metal laden runoff with pH levels comparable to household bleach.”
Riverkeeper is an environmental watchdog organization whose mission is to protect the ecological integrity of the Hudson River and its tributaries, and to safeguard the drinking water supply of New York City and the lower Hudson Valley.
Over the past few years, Riverkeeper has been involved in investigations of several cement plants that have been either been caught (or are suspected of) polluting the Hudson River and its tributaries with contaminated leachate from onsite landfills containing CKD. In 2007, Riverkeeper filed a Notice of Intent to Sue Lehigh Northeast Cement Company for illicit leachate discharges from its unlined CKD landfill. This action led to fines and an Order on Consent mandating cleanup from the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation.
The Lehigh landfill was constructed without a liner or leachate collection system and serves as an example of problem sites around the country that would be addressed through EPA action on Riverkeeper’s petition.
CROSSVILLE — Commissioners on the Environmental Committee authorized its engineer to proceed with the construction documents for the partial closure on the second half of the county's class one landfill.
Ronnie Reese, environmental engineer for Cumberland County's landfill, told commissioners serving on the Environmental Committee that phase 2 of the landfill closure for class one municipal waste and household garbage was almost full and it was time to proceed with closure preparations.
"You need to decide what you want to do with this, but I would recommend filling until the end of the month and compacting that down as much as possible and placing a temporary cap of one foot top cover to prevent so much water getting in creating as much leachate," Reese said.
Leachate is the byproduct or waste water that is drained from the bottom of the landfill. The liquid has to be taken to a treatment facility.
Once the landfill is closed, the county is scheduled to begin using a transfer station method through Cumberland Waste Disposal, a Waste Management company.
"Is the county ready to go to the transfer stations? I mean, when's the D-Day on that?" Jeff Brown, 8th District commissioner asked.
"I'm not sure," Reese said.
"The contracts and everything is in place on that. Basically, it's when we call them and we're ready and they'll start," Cumberland County Mayor Kenneth Carey said.
"You don't want to start a complete closure at this time in the year. It's up to you and you have to make the decision. But I'd recommend doing the temporary cover now and going ahead with the complete closure in spring," Reese said.
"If we do a temporary cover and wait till spring, will that affect the bidding?" 9th District Comissioner Carmin Lynch asked.
"Yes, it will. You're better off to wait on the bidding because of the plastic liner, it is based on oil prices and it can go up and down like a yo-yo. There's already a portion of it there ... You'd be better off to contract for a partial closure now with a temporary cap and then a permanent cap in the spring for the complete closure. I can have the paperwork and specifics ready to get to Nathan (Brock) and it should be ready to go out to bid in a few weeks," Reese said.
"Will we still have to deal with all the leachate?" 7th District Commissioner Mike Harvel asked.
"Yes, but it won't be anything like the amount we have had with the landfill open and running. I don't know a real figure for sure, though," Reese said.
Commissioner Lynch, who is not a member of the committee, but attended the meeting, reminded commissioners that phase one of the landfill closure was built into the budget, but phase two was not and the debt would have to be issued to have the figure and leachate would be a big factor.
Robert Safdie, 2nd District commissioner motioned to authorize Reese proceed with the documents to start with the partial closure on phase two with a temporary cap.
Terry Carter, 6th District commissioner, supported the motion and it was unanimously passed.
Reese updated commissioners on the status of the remainder of the class three-four landfill and said it could run until the summer of 2011. Reese said the area on top of that landfill was flat and could possibly be extended to go higher up with construction and demolition waste, but it would require a modification to the permit that would have to be submitted to the state.
"This would be considered a major modification if we wanted to extend it like that. You'd have to go through public meetings and a hearing process," Reese said.
He estimated it could extend the life of the class three-four landfill another four years.
"If you don't want to extend it, then we're looking at next summer for closure on that," Reese said.
Darrell Franklin of Faye Portables attended the meeting and addressed the committee stating they would be willing to transport up to 100 tons per day of ceramic tile to the class three-four landfill for a reduced rate.
The current rate is $30 per ton, but Faye requested a rate of $15 per ton since they would be bringing in such a large quantity on a daily basis.
"We'd be looking at around 100 tons per day. It could be more or less, but it's available now and it would be good for both of us. It could give you added revenue for your landfill costs," Darrell Franklin said.
He added it would be approximately 80 percent tile and 20 percent demolition combined.
"It would greatly accelerate the rate of our landfill closure, but it won't take up the volume as regular C&D waste," Mayor Carey said.
"Well, it would fill quicker and you've got to consider if we give these guys a reduction then our own people who elected us into these positions, our local contractors are going to want a discounted rate for bringing their stuff," said 7th District Commissioner Roy Turner.
"It wouldn't make any sense to do the discounted rate just to break even and fill the landfill up faster. It's something we've got to study," Brown said. "We'd need some kind of a contract to do this, too."
Commissioners said they would have to look at the proposal to consider and get some estimates from Reese on much it take in ceramic tile to fill the landfill and how much the extension would cost if they were to consider having it constructed.
"It's not something we can answer tonight. It's something we're going to have to look at and get back after we get some estimates," Brown said.
This digital document is a journal article from Ecological Engineering, published by Elsevier in . The article is delivered in HTML format and is available in your Amazon.com Media Library immediately after purchase. You can view it with any web browser.
Description: Four surface-flow mesocosm wetlands were operated at different hydraulic retention times during two periods to treat diluted woodwaste leachate that was acidic, of very high oxygen demand, and toxic. Temperature, dissolved oxygen, and redox potential decreased with increasing water depth. However, there was no significant vertical variation in microbial biomass. No significant development in biomass of planktonic microorganisms was found over 6 weeks of initial operation. It took <1-6 weeks for maturation of the biofilm on submerged plant surfaces and the sedimentary microbial community. Mass reduction efficiencies of chemical oxygen demand, and tannin and lignin increased significantly with hydraulic retention time when 10% leachate was fed with tap water. When a more recalcitrant influent was fed, there was a slight increase of reduction efficiency with increasing hydraulic retention time. Reduction rates increased linearly with mass loading rates up to 0.4kgm^-^3d^-^1 chemical oxygen demand and 0.13kgm^-^3d^-^1 tannin and lignin. Precipitation and evapotranspiration had profound impacts on the overall performance and its variability. Mass balance-based operating data of wetlands with a mature microbial community are required for proper performance assessment. formance assessment.
Disposing of solids waste to landfill is regarded as one of the most economical means of handling waste though landfills pose pollution threat to both ground and surface water resources. However, landfill liners and good landfill management practices may reduce the impact of water contamination by landfills. Chemical analysis of groundwater beneath and near two landfills from New Zealand and Lesotho (in Southern Africa) showed that there are higher concentrations of chemicals such as Chlorides, TDS and COD than average. The water was also found to contain higher amounts of heavy metals. High concentrations of chemical constituents, such as those found in leachate contaminated water may cause various health complications in humans if consumed. To minimize possible hazards due to landfillleachate, future landfills must be lined at the base and sides by a combination of clay, geosynthetic clay and high-density polyethylene liners.
Constructed wetlands are proving to be the best natural treatment system for landfillleachates.Most of the contaminants in landfillleachates are degraded in treatment wetlands. Potential for long-term sustainability and significant cost savings are attractive features of this eco-technology.Documentation of the experience in this use of constructed wetlands has been limited. Constructed Wetlands for the Treatment of LandfillLeachates is the first compilation of the results of research from North America and Europe. Originally presented at an international symposium, this collection of papers offers the most recent research findings from the leading researchers in this new and innovative natural treatment system.Specific issues addressed in the text include:oleachate characteristics, and the potential for treatability by constructed wetlandsowetland treatment, processes and transformationouse of constructed wetlands in cold climatic conditionsoassessment of the tolerance of wetland plants to the toxicity of leachatesorole of plants in the treatments of leachatesointegrated wetland systemsoperformance of different wetland treatment systemsocost comparisons of wetland technology vs. traditional treatment technologiesThe potential for environmental contamination due to leachates from landfills is increasing, and there is an urgent need to find ways and means to treat leachates in a sustainable way Constructed Wetlands for the Treatment of LandfillLeachates will provide an invaluable source of information on the subject for scientists, engineers, practitioners, policy makers, and regulatory officials.
CRANSTON — The Rhode Island Resource Recovery Corporation has until Sept. 27 to settle a $2-million debt in back charges or the city will initiate legal action, members of the City Council’s public works committee said Thursday.
Council members say the owner and operator of the state Central Landfill in Johnston snubbed settlement attempts for months.
“They can’t continue to put their heads in the sand and act like we don’t exist,” Council President John E. Lanni Jr. said.
Friday, Michael J. OConnell, the corporation’s executive director, said Resource Recovery was actually waiting for city officials to contact them.
“Our predicament is that we have requested information from them, and we haven’t got anything back from them, which is why we can’t respond,” OConnell said.
On July 20, the city billed Resource Recovery for $2,096,598.31 in back charges, saying the corporation failed to treat its leachate or pay its share of expensive upgrades. The invoice includes $437,254.52 in operating and maintenance costs associated with the excess loading dating to 2005, and $1,659,343.78 for the corporation’s pro-rated share of the city’s costs of upgrading the plant based on a permit change that year. It does not include possible administrative costs.
City officials also say Resource Recovery allowed three businesses in its Johnston industrial park to illegally tie into Cranston’s sewer service. That violation carries penalties of $25,000 per day per business, city officials say.
City Solicitor Evan Kirshenbaum and Councilman Mario Aceto, the committee’s chairman, have said the city tried to negotiate a resolution for the past year, but agency officials stalled in scheduling another meeting. City officials later learned from a newspaper article that Resource Recovery was planning to build a sewer line to connect into a Narragansett Bay Commission sewage intake.
The Providence Journal filed an open records request on July 30 asking for copies of public documents, including the corporation’s annual budget, along with any supporting documentation and description of the corporation’s leachate pretreatment system or payment-in-lieu of pretreatment and any sewer agreement with the city to extend service to the corporation’s industrial park.
The deadline to respond was Sept. 14.
Friday, OConnell said the corporation’s lawyer was reviewing the documents to see which, if any, would be released “because this is a likely lawsuit in the near term.”
Also Thursday night, the council finance committee voted to unseal the minutes of several closed-door discussions on how much Johnson & Wales University is to pay the city in taxes for 12 lots, roughly 20 acres of waterfront land, on its Harborside Campus.
In 2005, the city rezoned the land and amended its Comprehensive Plan to allow the university to build 12 dormitories and a community building and management facility.
The campus, which includes 84 buildings on the Providence side, was built by a nonprofit agency, which leases the buildings to the university. That raised the question of whether the project was tax-exempt.
Rather than seek clarification, the university and the city reached a 20-year agreement that city officials say was never signed, under which the city was to get $95,000 annually for the first 10 years and $104,500 for the next 10 years.
The “memorandum of understanding” called for the city to collect most of that money from the state in the form of a payment in lieu of taxes and Johnson & Wales to cover any difference between the state compensation and the agreed-upon figure. If the property was later deemed to be taxable, the university agreed to pay the appropriate tax.
This year, Finance Director Robert F. Strom said, Cranston received $4.2 million in PILOT money from the state, which includes payment for the 12 university parcels and 20 state lots. Strom estimated the state’s payment for Johnson & Wales was $150,000 to $160,000.
The university land, Strom said, is currently assessed at $4.8 million, and the buildings at $21 million.
He said the city also has completed supplemental environmental performance projects, which he described as "essentially an additional penalty designed to improve the situation, including a methane capture system. Slivka also addressed a concern from Ready regarding what happens when the landfill closes in May 2011.
"We will have a financial assurance instrument in place," he said.
"Essentially saying 'Here's this money to fix violation issues if it happens."
Fulton Director of Administration Bill Johnson said the city actually has been subject to more inspections since announcing its intention to close the landfill.
"DNR has an interest in ensuring we close it properly," Johnson said.
Regarding odor issues, Slivka said the Department of Natural Resources has been out to test air quality on a number of occasions -- as recently as the week of Sept. 6 -- and never found a problem.
"On odor violations, our litmus test is 7 to 1 dissolution," Slivka said. "We've gone out there a number of times and it's never been higher than 2 to 1."
Johnson addressed the most recent violations for exposed litter.
"This is not an excuse, but we are approaching our closure date, and there was an attempt to spread trash thinner over a wider area to even out the land," Johnson said, noting that process also included having to haul in more dirt. "The idea sounded good to use the trash to fill in, but it just didn't work out the way we thought.
"We did it, it was wrong, and we won't be doing it anymore."
As for methane levels, he said one supplemental environmental performance project currently in the works involves putting in a 10,000 gallon tank to pump water that flows down into the methane collection wells out of the landfill.
"This will allow our methane extraction wells to function better," Johnson said. "Hopefully by drawing the methane down into the wells it will stop it from migrating."
Another just-completed project is a storm water sediment pond "that will give sediment in the storm water time to settle out before water leaves the site."
Although Slivka said he could not give a number regarding how much the city has been fined for these violations, he did say DNR recently sent an agreement in principal regarding settlement.
"We're certainly sympathetic to Mrs. Ready, but we feel like we have been out there and we have been on the city's back," Slivka said.
Johnson acknowledged the city has received that agreement, noting DNR is proposing a fine of $10,000 as well as an additional $5,403 to pay for investigative costs.
Johnson said he is scheduled to meet with Department of Natural Resources officials later this week, and noted the agreement in principle will be presented to the Fulton City Council at its Sept. 28 meeting.
CMS would filter the water to remove 90 percent of mercury, but some ask if that's enough
PETOSKEY, MI -- CMS Land Company believes they've found a local solution to the Leachate problem at Bay Harbor and East Park, but it's being met with some serious concern.
What to do with the contaminated water from the former Penn-Dixie Cement Plant near Petoskey?
That has been the question, and for four years, the water has been shipped to a deep-well injection site.
But CMS Land Company says something else needs to be done, and they believe they've found the solution.
But this solution could mean small quantities of Mercury being diluted into the Great Lakes.
For five years it has worked like this...collect the run-off water that contains mercury from the contaminated land underneath Bay Harbor and East Park, neutralize it in this building, and then ship the result, an average of 150-thousand gallons per day, to a deep-injection well-site more than 50 miles away to Johannesburg. C-M-S Land Company has been in charge, and now, they say it's their belief they've found a better *local solution to take care of the local problem.
"We're proposing to build a $4 million state-of-the-art facility to treat the water that we collect here using the best available technology and then release that water back to Lake Michigan," said CMS Land Company Area Manager Tim Petrosky.
The main contaminant of concern is Mercury. The facility will remove 90 percent or more from the water. That water would then be mixed with clean water to meet environmental criteria before going back in the lake.
"The requirements are very, very stringent, in fact, the release criteria for mercury to the lake is 1.3 parts per trillion," said Petrosky.
Here's an analogy of the parts per trillion guideline. It'd be like placing one drop of contaminated liquid in all of the water of 20 Olympic-sized swimming pools combined.
But Doctor Grenetta Thomassey of the Tip of the Mitt Watershed Council says this amount *may seem benign...it could be detrimental, which is why the council doesn't support this solution.
“You mix it with water, and let it go into Little Traverse Bay, and then you come back and you mix it with water, and let it go into Little Traverse Bay, and basically what you got is that exact same amount of mercury all ending up in Little Traverse Bay, so we're not in favor of that, no," said Thomassey.
CMS has submitted an application to the Department of Natural Resources and Environment.
“We look really carefully at mercury because it is one of the few contaminants that is known as a bio-cumulative compound, meaning that it builds up in the environment over a period of time, so we look at that very carefully," said Bob Wagner, the Lake Huron Regional Director of the DNRE.
“We think it's the best solution to environmental, safety, and economic perspective," said Petrosky.
“This is a bad deal. So we are not interested in anything going into Little Traverse Bay if it can be prevented," said Thomassee.
The DNRE will review the application and if the proposed treatment meets the guidelines, they'll issue a draft permit sometime in October or November. After that, they'll seek public comment.
MARGAO: Fatorda MLA Damodar Naik accompanied by the chief officer of the Margao Municipal Council (MMC) inspected the Sonsoddo site on Tuesday morning to take stock of the status of the work of the garbage treatment plant carried out by Fomento-IL&FS.
Chief executive officer of Fomento, Sridhar Kamat, was also present on the occasion.
The BJP legislator voiced his displeasure over the failure of Fomento to put in place any adequate measures to control flow of leachate from the site onto the roads. The explanation offered by Kamat that the heavy rains impeded the leachate control work at the site failed to convince Naik who demanded that the situation be brought under control within two days.
Later speaking to reporters, Naik said that he had received several complaints from the residents of the area about leachate from Sonsoddo flowing onto the streets since the last several days. "It's over seven months that the site was handed over to Fomento by the MMC and it is yet to control leachate flow.
The situation is leading to contamination of wells in the vicinity and will turn out to be a health hazard if the leachate flow is not brought under control immediately," Naik said.
MMC councillors Narayan Fondekar, Raju Shirodkar, Ciriaca Rodrigues, municipal engineer Surendra Naik and sanitary inspector Viraj Arabekar were present for the inspection.
MOST people object to having a landfill near their houses. We generate rubbish but once it enters the dustbins or recycling bin, we want nothing more to do with it.
The main reason is fear of possible health problems arising from contact with pollutants escaping from waste management sites, but the problem is set to grow over the next decade due to our throwaway lifestyle.
Each year, we produce more than nine million tons of household waste, but only recycle 3% of it. There is no positive sign that waste generation is decreasing. As a result, a large number of former mines and quarries have been lined with water-proof material and filled with rubbish. As suburbia spreads and brown field sites are developed, more Malaysian families than ever before are living close to landfill sites.
In landfill sites, bacteria break down food and other organic materials, producing potentially pollution liquids and gases such as ammonia, acids and heavy metals, mixed into a nasty cocktail called leachate.
All these contaminants are cause for concern if they end up in natural
water-courser and drinking water supplies. Many such cases have been recorded lately in Malaysia.
Leachate can destroy the well balanced eco-system and is very harmful to human. It is clear that poorly managed landfill will lead to serious environmental problem such as the recent incidence of raw water pollution caused by leachate seepage from a landfill.
Hence, leachate management becomes an important issue in deciding which strategy to apply in any planning process involving the closure of dumps and siting and development of landfills. The main objective of any leachate management will be to ensure that landfill waste does not impose any unacceptable short term or long term risks to the environment or to public health.
Enschede, The Netherlands -- Two years ago, ISTAÇ (Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality Environmental Protection and Waste Materials Valuation Industry) and Norit X-Flow embarked on one of the most remarkable wastewater treatment projects of its time; the treatment of leachate from the Istanbul landfill in Odayeri and Kömürcüoda. The installation became the largest membrane leachate plant in the world and involves the most advanced water treatment technology available.
The ISTAÇ Leachate Treatment project represents one of the most challenging filtration projects globally, based upon its size, environmental conditions , and continuous growth rates. The solution had to be robust, future proof and deliver consistently the highest effluent quality levels to ensure the environmental integrity of the region. says Jürgen von Hollen, Managing Director of Norit X-Flow.
After approximately two years of operation and treating up to 3500 m3 of landfill water percolate on a daily basis the conclusion is that the plant meets its specifications and contractual requirements for discharge of the treated effluent. ISTAÇ and Norit X-Flow celebrated the official handover and the successful partnership on August 17, 2010.
Water percolating through landfills for solid waste results in leachate, which may contain undesirable or toxic chemicals. The ISTAÇ landfill is constructed to prevent leachate contamination of groundwater or surface waters. The landfill percolate containing high amounts of COD, BOD, TSS and Nitrogen is collected and treated by Norit's membrane bioreactor (MBR) technology which makes it possible to discharge this water directly into the Black Sea, a process that is in line with both current and future drainage standards.
Beside its state of the art MBR technology, the wastewater treatment plants in Istanbul uses a combination of two advanced Norit X-Flow technologies: a biological process applied in conjunction with ultrafiltration followed by nanofiltration.
The collected leachate is first subjected to primary clarification and afterwards transferred to a bioreactor unit for biological treatment. In the bioreactor COD, BOD and Nitrogen compounds are eliminated. Subsequently the Norit X-Flow Crossflow membrane system, placed outside of the bioreactor, separates sludge, solid waste on suspension and some amount of COD. Lastly, the Norit NF installation eliminates the remaining COD, organic micro polluters, heavy metals and other compounds (humic acids, color) to a water quality conform current and future discharge standards.
Mr. Akguel, Managing Director of ISTAÇ adds ?The success of the project beyond the technological solution can be attributed to the project partnership approach adopted by both ISTAÇ and Norit X-Flow both at the operational level, but equally important at the management level to ensure that full commitment and prioritization was given to this project. Our continuous partnership will ensure that this installation is the benchmark for landfill leachate plants for years to come.?
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.
Disposing of solids waste to 
Constructed wetlands are proving to be the best natural treatment system for 
A guide to the control of 
Enschede, The Netherlands -- Two years ago, ISTAÇ (Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality Environmental Protection and Waste Materials Valuation Industry) and Norit X-Flow embarked on one of the most remarkable wastewater treatment projects of its time; the treatment of leachate from the Istanbul landfill in Odayeri and Kömürcüoda. The installation became the largest membrane leachate plant in the world and involves the most advanced water treatment technology available.