DOCSLIB.ORG

Development Document for Landfills Effluent Guidelines

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Development Document for Landfills Effluent Guidelines United States Office of Water (4303) EPA-821-R-99-019 Environmental Protection Washington, DC 20460 January 2000 Agency Development Document for Final Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Landfills Point Source Category DEVELOPMENT DOCUMENT FOR FINAL EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS GUIDELINES AND STANDARDS FOR THE LANDFILLS POINT SOURCE CATEGORY Carol M. Browner Administrator J. Charles Fox Assistant Administrator, Office of Water Geoffrey H. Grubbs Director, Office of Science and Technology Sheila E. Frace Director, Engineering and Analysis Division Elwood H. Forsht Chief, Chemicals and Metals Branch Michael C. Ebner Project Manager January 2000 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water Washington, DC 20460 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS AND DISCLAIMER This document has been reviewed and approved for publication by the Engineering Analysis Division, Office of Science and Technology (OST), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The Agency would like to acknowledge the contributions of OST Staff to the development of this document. This document was prepared with the support of Science Applications International Corporation under the direction and review of EPA’s Office of Science and Technology. Neither the United States government nor any of its employees, contractors, subcontractors, or other employees makes any warranty, expressed or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for any third party's use of, or the results of such use of, any information, apparatus, product, or process discussed in this report, or represents that its use by such a third party would not infringe on privately owned rights. LANDFILLS DEVELOPMENT DOCUMENT TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 LEGAL AUTHORITY ................................................. 1-1 1.1 Legal Authority ................................................. 1-1 1.2 Background .................................................... 1-1 1.2.1 Clean Water Act (CWA) .................................... 1-1 1.2.1.1 Best Practicable Control Technology Currently Available (BPT)1-1 1.2.1.2 Best Conventional Pollutant Control Technology (BCT) ..... 1-2 1.2.1.3 Best Available Technology Economically Achievable (BAT) . 1-2 1.2.1.4 New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) ............... 1-3 1.2.1.5 Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources (PSES) ........ 1-3 1.2.1.6 Pretreatment Standards for New Sources (PSNS) ........... 1-4 1.2.2 Section 304(m) Requirements ................................ 1-4 2.0 SUMMARY AND SCOPE .............................................. 2-1 2.1 Introduction .................................................... 2-1 2.2 Subcategorization ................................................ 2-1 2.3 Scope of Final Regulation ......................................... 2-2 2.4 Best Practicable Control Technology Currently Available (BPT) ........... 2-4 2.5 Best Conventional Pollutant Control Technology (BCT) ................. 2-4 2.6 Best Available Technology Economically Achievable (BAT) ............. 2-4 2.7 New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) ........................... 2-5 2.8 Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources (PSES) .................... 2-5 2.9 Pretreatment Standards for New Sources (PSNS) ....................... 2-5 2.10 Implementation of the Rule for Contaminated Ground Water Flows and Wastewater from Recovering Pumping Wells .......................... 2-5 2.11 Implementation of the Rule for Storm Water Discharges ................. 2-7 2.12 Exclusion for Captive Landfill Facilities ............................. 2-10 2.13 Determination of Similar Wastes for Captive Landfill Facilities .......... 2-16 3.0 INDUSTRY DESCRIPTION ............................................. 3-1 3.1 Regulatory History of the Landfills Industry ........................... 3-3 3.1.1 RCRA Subtitle C .......................................... 3-3 3.1.1.1 Land Disposal Restrictions ............................ 3-4 3.1.1.2 Minimum Technology Requirements .................... 3-6 3.1.2 RCRA Subtitle D .......................................... 3-6 3.1.2.1 40 CFR Part 257, Subpart A - Criteria for Classification of Solid Waste Disposal Facilities and Practices ................... 3-7 i TABLE OF CONTENTS 3.1.2.2 40 CFR Part 257, Subpart B - Conditionally Exempt Small Quantity Generator Revised Criteria ..................... 3-8 3.1.2.3 40 CFR Part 258 Revised Criteria for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills ........................................... 3-8 3.1.3 Current Wastewater Regulations .............................. 3-9 3.2 Industry Profile ................................................. 3-10 3.2.1 Industry Population ....................................... 3-11 3.2.2 Number and Location of Facilities ............................ 3-12 3.2.2.1 Captive Landfill Facilities ............................ 3-13 3.2.3 General Information on Landfill Facilities ..................... 3-14 3.2.4 Waste Receipts and Types .................................. 3-15 3.2.5 Sources of Wastewater ..................................... 3-16 3.2.5.1 Landfill Leachate ................................... 3-16 3.2.5.2 Landfill Gas Condensate ............................. 3-17 3.2.5.3 Drained Free Liquids ................................ 3-17 3.2.5.4 Truck/Equipment Washwater ......................... 3-18 3.2.5.5 Laboratory-Derived Wastewater ....................... 3-18 3.2.5.6 Storm Water ....................................... 3-19 3.2.5.7 Contaminated Ground Water .......................... 3-19 3.2.5.8 Recovering Pumping Wells ........................... 3-20 3.2.6 Leachate Collection Systems ................................ 3-20 3.2.7 Pretreatment Methods ..................................... 3-21 3.2.8 Baseline Treatment ....................................... 3-22 3.2.9 Discharge Types .......................................... 3-22 4.0 DATA COLLECTION ACTIVITIES ...................................... 4-1 4.1 Introduction .................................................... 4-1 4.2 Preliminary Data Summary ........................................ 4-1 4.3 Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 308 Questionnaires .................... 4-3 4.3.1 Screener Surveys .......................................... 4-4 4.3.1.1 Recipient Selection and Mailing ........................ 4-4 4.3.1.2 Information Collected ................................ 4-5 4.3.1.3 Data Entry, Coding, and Analysis ....................... 4-6 4.3.1.4 Mailout Results ..................................... 4-6 4.3.2 Detailed Technical Questionnaires ............................ 4-6 4.3.2.1 Recipient Selection and Mailing ........................ 4-7 4.3.2.2 Information Collected ................................ 4-7 4.3.2.3 Data Entry, Coding, and Analysis ....................... 4-8 ii TABLE OF CONTENTS 4.3.2.4 Mailout Results ..................................... 4-9 4.4 Detailed Monitoring Questionnaire .................................. 4-9 4.4.1 Recipient Selection and Mailing .............................. 4-9 4.4.2 Information Collected ..................................... 4-10 4.4.3 Data Entry, Coding, and Analysis ............................ 4-10 4.5 Engineering Site Visits .......................................... 4-10 4.6 Wastewater Characterization Site Visits ............................. 4-11 4.7 EPA Week-Long Sampling Program ................................ 4-12 4.8 Other Data Sources ............................................. 4-13 4.8.1 Industry Supplied Data ..................................... 4-13 4.8.2 Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA)/Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) Ground Water Data ....................................... 4-13 4.8.3 POTW Study ............................................ 4-14 4.8.4 National Risk Management Research Laboratory Data ............ 4-15 4.9 QA/QC and Other Data Editing Procedures .......................... 4-15 4.9.1 QA/QC Procedures ....................................... 4-16 4.9.2 Analytical Database Review ................................ 4-16 4.9.2.1 Data Review Narratives .............................. 4-16 4.9.2.2 Completeness Checks ............................... 4-16 4.9.2.3 Trip Blanks and Equipment Blanks ..................... 4-17 4.9.2.4 Field Duplicates .................................... 4-18 4.9.2.5 Grab Samples ...................................... 4-19 4.9.2.6 Non-Detect Data ................................... 4-19 4.9.2.7 Bi-Phasic Samples .................................. 4-20 4.9.2.8 Conversion of Weight/Weight Data ..................... 4-20 4.9.2.9 Average Concentration Data .......................... 4-21 4.9.3 Detailed Questionnaire Database Review ...................... 4-21 4.9.4 Detailed Monitoring Questionnaire Review .................... 4-22 5.0 INDUSTRY SUBCATEGORIZATION .................................... 5-1 5.1 Subcategorization Approach ....................................... 5-1 5.2 Landfills Subcategories ........................................... 5-2 5.3 Other Factors Considered for Basis of Subcategorization ................. 5-3 5.3.1 Types of Wastes Received ................................... 5-3 5.3.2 Wastewater Characteristics .................................. 5-7 5.3.3 Facility Size .............................................. 5-8 5.3.4 Ownership ............................................... 5-9 iii TABLE OF CONTENTS 5.3.5 Geographic Location ....................................... 5-9 5.3.6 Facility Age ............................................. 5-11 5.3.7
Load more

Recommended publications
  • State of Utah DIVISION of WASTE MANAGEMENT GARY R
    Department of Environmental Quality L. Scott Baird Executive Director State of Utah DIVISION OF WASTE MANAGEMENT GARY R. HERBERT AND RADIATION CONTROL Governor Ty L. Howard SPENCER J. COX Director Lieutenant Governor November 5, 2020 Cassady Kristensen Environmental Business Partner Rio Tinto Kennecott 4700 Daybreak Parkway South Jordan, UT 84009 RE: Kennecott Utah Copper Tailings Impoundment Refuse Class IIIb Landfill Permit Dear Ms. Kristensen: The Division of Waste Management and Radiation Control (Division) has completed its review of the application to permit the Rio Tinto Kennecott Utah Copper Tailings Impoundment Refuse Class IIIb Landfill located on the Rio Tinto Kennecott Tailings Impoundment facility in Salt Lake County, Utah. Enclosed with this letter is the approved Permit Number 1905 and applicable attachments from portions of the application. The Permit approval and expiration dates are shown on the permit cover page. Also, the Statement of Basis for this permit (DSHW-2020-014707) is included with the permit. If you have any questions, please call Doug Taylor at (801) 536-0240. Sincerely, Ty L. Howard, Director Division of Waste Management and Radiation Control (Over) DSHW-2020-014711 195 North 1950 West • Salt Lake City, UT Mailing Address: P.O. Box 144880 • Salt Lake City, UT 84114-4880 Telephone (801) 536-0200 • Fax (801) 536-0222 • T.D.D. (801) 536-4284 www.deq.utah.gov Printed on 100% recycled paper TLH/DT/ar Enclosures: Permit (DSHW-2020-004084) Attachment #1 - Landfill Design (DSHW-2020-004510) Attachment #2 – Operation Plan (DSHW- 2020-004512) Attachment #3 – Closure and Post-Closure Plan (DSHW-2020-004514) Statement of Basis (DSHW-2020-014707) c: Gary Edwards, MS, Health Officer, Salt Lake County Health Dept.
    [Show full text]
  • Anaerobic Digestion of Wastewater Sludge (Nazaroff & Alvarez-Cohen, Section 6.E.3)
    Anaerobic Digestion of Wastewater Sludge (Nazaroff & Alvarez-Cohen, Section 6.E.3) nice, clean water going to disinfection and then to outdoor body of receiving water (stream, lake or sea) sludge in need of further treatment The goal is to reduce the amount of sludge that needs to be disposed. The most widely employed method for sludge treatment is anaerobic digestion. In this process, a large fraction of the organic matter (cells) is broken down into carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane (CH4), and this is accomplished in the absence of oxygen. About half of the amount is then converted into gases, while the remainder is dried and becomes a residual soil-like material. What the equipment looks like The tank is capped - to prevent oxygen from coming in, - to prevent odors from escaping, and - to capture the methane produced. This methane, a fuel, can be used to meet some of the energy requirements of the wastewater treatment facility (co-generation). What the sludge looks like after anaerobic digestion and subsequent drying. It is rich in nitrates and performs well as a fertilizer. (Photos from http://www.madep-sa.com/english/wwtp.html) 1 (Originally from Metcalf & Eddy, 1991) from & Metcalf Eddy, (Originally 6.E.7) Figure Alvarez-Cohen, & (Nazaroff How the system works The treatment of wastewater sludge, from both primary and secondary treatment steps, consists of two main phases. ● In the 1st step, all incoming flows of sludge are combined, and the mixture is heated to a mild temperature (about body temperature) to accelerate biological conversion. The residence time here ranges from 10 to 20 days.
    [Show full text]
  • Sewage Secondary Treatment After Primary Treatment, the Sewage Water Is Subjected to the Next Phase Called Biological Treatment Or Secondary Treatment
    Sewage secondary treatment After primary treatment, the sewage water is subjected to the next phase called biological treatment or secondary treatment. Dissolved and suspended biological materials are removed by indigenous microbial decomposition in a managed environment. In this treatment, BOD is reduced up to 90-95%. Biological treatment is carried out in two important phases: 1. Aerobic phase: oxidation lagoons trickling filters, activated sludge 2. Anaerobic phase: sludge digestion A. Oxidation lagoons /oxidation ponds / stabilization ponds 1. It is outdoor, simple, suspension type aerobic treatment. 2. It is suggested for small societies in rural areas where sufficient low lying land of little real state value is available. 3. It is oldest of the sewage treatment systems used in most of developing countries due to its low cost. 4. In this shallow pond is required which should be maximum of 10 feet depth having inlet and outlet. 5. It consists of three different zones as shown in the following diagram: Requirements of Oxidation pond: 1. Presence of algal growth which produces oxygen. 2. Oxygen is also available from atmosphere. 3. Heterotrophic aerobic and anaerobic microbes for decomposing sewage. 4. Sunlight required for photosynthesis, also has bactericidal properties (UV). Advantages of oxidation pond: 1. Simple 2. Inexpensive 3. Low maintenance Disadvantages of oxidation pond: 1. Effected by environment: low temperature, cloudy sky lowers efficiency 2. Takes longer time(Long retention time) 3. Gives bad odour(H2 S) 4. Not hygienic 5. Just lowers BOD by 25%to 60% B. Trickling Filter Method 1. It is also outdoor, aerobic, relatively simple but of film flow type.
    [Show full text]
  • Municipal Solid Waste Landfill Operation and Management Workbook
    MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE LANDFILL OPERATION AND MANAGEMENT WORKBOOK Revised April 2018 Preface In many ways, constructing, operating and maintaining a municipal solid waste landfill is similar to constructing, operating, and maintaining a highway, dam, canal, bridge, or other engineered structure. The most important similarity is that landfills, like other engineered structures, must be constructed and operated in a manner that will provide safe, long-term, and reliable service to the communities they serve. Proper design, construction, operation, monitoring, closure and post-closure care are critical because after disposal the waste can be a threat to human health and the environment for decades to centuries. This workbook is intended to provide municipal landfill operators and managers in Wyoming with the fundamental knowledge and technical background necessary to ensure that landfills are operated efficiently, effectively, and in a manner that is protective of human health and the environment. This workbook contains information regarding basic construction and operation activities that are encountered on a routine basis at most landfills. The basic procedures and fundamental elements of landfill permitting, construction management, monitoring, closure, post-closure care, and financial assurance are also addressed. The workbook includes informative tips and information that landfill operators and managers can use to conserve landfill space, minimize the potential for pollution, reduce operating costs, and comply with applicable rules and regulations. In addition to this workbook, operators and managers need to become familiar with the Wyoming Solid Waste Rules and Regulations applicable to municipal solid waste. The DEQ also provides numerous guidelines that may help understand regulatory requirements in more detail.
    [Show full text]
  • Leachate Quantities After Closure of a Landfill
    Leachate Quantities after Closure of a Landfill Ali Khatami, Ph.D., P.E., The leachate quantities for SCS Engineers the period of 2010 through 2014 were obtained and Criteria for the solid waste analyzed. The data clearly landfills (40 CFR Part 258 shows a downward trend of or the Subtitle D Federal) leachate quantities following have been around for over 30 closure, as would be years and many municipal expected. Leachate collected solid waste (MSW) landfills from the landfill during have been constructed 2010 was reported on a with lining systems in monthly basis when leachate accordance with the Subtitle quantities after closure were D requirements. However, still high and needed to be very few Subtitle D landfills removed from the facility have been entirely closed for disposal every month. with final covers that include However, leachate quantities a geomembrane barrier layer. rapidly decreased and The significance of the final Glades County Landfill after closing. monthly shipment of leachate covers with geomembrane was no longer necessary; is that percolation of rain Since the landfill was closed in one single construction event, rain water instead, leachate was removed when water into the landfill essentially the storage tank reached a point that stops following completion of the percolation was essentially eliminated almost instantaneously considering the leachate had to be removed and final cover. Assuming the final cover quantities reported. Therefore, the the 20-year time frame the landfill was system remains intact, leachate that data did not have monthly values, but continues to be generated after closure open. It is important to note that the maximum thickness of waste in the clusters of several-months data.
    [Show full text]
  • Five Facts About Incineration Five Facts About Incineration
    Five facts about incineration Five facts about incineration Across the globe, cities are looking for ways to improve their municipal solid waste systems. In the search for services that are affordable, green and easy to implement, many cities are encouraged to turn to waste-to-energy (WtE) technologies, such as incineration.1 But, as found in WIEGO’s Technical Brief 11 (Waste Incineration and Informal Livelihoods: A Technical Guide on Waste-to-Energy Initiatives by Jeroen IJgosse), incineration is far from the perfect solution and, particularly in the Global South, can be less cost-effective, more complicated and can negatively impact the environment and informal waste workers’ livelihoods. Below, we have collected the top five issues highlighted in the study that show why this technology is a risky choice: 1. Incineration costs more than recycling. How incineration may be promoted: Incineration is a good economic decision because it reduces the costs associated with landfill operations while also creating energy that can be used by the community. The reality: • In 2016, the World Energy Council reported that, “energy generation from waste is a costly option, in comparison with other established power generation sources.” • Setting up an incineration project requires steep investment costs from the municipality. • For incineration projects to remain financially stable long-term, high fees are required, which place a burden on municipal finances and lead to sharp increases in user fees. • If incinerators are not able to collect enough burnable waste, they will burn other fuels (gas) instead. Contract obligations can force a municipality to make up the difference if an incinerator doesn’t burn enough to create the needed amount of energy.
    [Show full text]
  • How Is Wastewater Treated (PDF)
    FOLD FOLD FOLD We Need Your Help Industrial Service Area How is Pretreatment Here are three easy things you can do to protect The City of Everett’s wastewater treatment Wastewater water quality and minimize treatment cost. plant, called the Everett Water Pollution Control unicipal treatment plants like the EWPCF are Facility (EWPCF), is located on Smith Island 1. Keep trash out of the system. designed to treat residential and commercial in North Everett. The EWPCF serves more than Treated? ■ M Put hair, feminine hygiene products, wastewater. However, some industrial 133,000 people including all of Everett and cotton swabs and grease in the wastewater contains pollutants that primary and parts of Mukilteo, Silver Lake and Alderwood. garbage. secondary treatment cannot remove. The plant treats an average of 20 million 2. Reduce your water consumption. This wastewater requires industrial pretreatment gallons of wastewater per day, although the ■ Conserving water saves money and to remove metals, acids or other chemicals, influent volume to the plant can increase to protects the environment since the less or in the case of food services, most fats almost 100 million gallons on rainy days. water you use, the less wastewater we and grease. City staff work with industrial have to treat. customers to remove these pollutants before the 3. Keep hazardous waste out of the system. wastewater is sent to the treatment plant. ■ Never put hazardous waste down the drain. Hazardous waste includes pesticides, herbicides, solvents, paint thinners and engine oil. Hazardous Biosolids waste is any material that can catch fire, Port explode, corrode or is toxic.
    [Show full text]
  • Anaerobic Digestion of Primary Sewage Effluent
    Anaerobic Digestion of Primary Sewage Effluent Prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability Under Cooperative Agreement No. DE-EE0003507 Hawai‘i Energy Sustainability Program Subtask 3.4: Biomass Submitted by Hawai‘i Natural Energy Institute School of Ocean and Earth Science and Technology University of Hawai‘i September 2014 Acknowledgement: This material is based upon work supported by the United States Department of Energy under Cooperative Agreement Number DE-EE0003507. Disclaimer: This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference here in to any specific commercial product, process, or service by tradename, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof. SUMMARY A hybrid system comprised an up-flow packed bed anaerobic reactor and a down-flow trickling-filter reactor connected in series was shown to effectively treat primary clarifier effluent. When a clarifier and sand filter were added to the system, the effluent water quality achieved values of BOD5 and TSS that were below the EPA’s water discharge limits of 30 mg/l and equivalent to highly efficient activated sludge systems.
    [Show full text]
  • Guidance for Leachate Recirculation at Municipal Solid Waste Landfills
    Guidance for Leachate Recirculation at Municipal Solid Waste Landfills Waste/Solid Waste #5.08 • June 2009 Introduction leachate generation, and thus, potential groundwater quality impacts. This Guidance has been developed to meet three goals: Of the waste in landfills at Minnesota Contents MSWLFs in 2006, approximately 77 1. Provide municipal solid waste percent went to facilities that currently Introduction ............... 1 landfill (MSWLF) owners with the have active gas collection systems History ....................... 1 minimum standards to implement Benefits ..................... 2 (Burnsville, Clay, Crow Wing, East Goals......................... 2 leachate recirculation as a tool in Central, Elk River, Pine Bend, and Spruce Design ....................... 3 managing leachate on-site and Ridge). Also in 2006, 43 percent of the Operation .................. 4 minimizing the long-term impact of waste stream went to facilities that Landfill gas the disposed waste to human health recirculate their leachate (Crow Wing, East management ............. 5 and the environment. Monitoring ................. 5 Central, Elk River, Lyon, Morrison, and Physical monitoring 2. Encourage the control of greenhouse Spruce Ridge). parameters ................ 6 Leachate monitoring gas (GHG) emissions at MSWLFs. parameters ................ 6 3. Encourage the production of energy Gas monitoring parameters ................ 7 from landfill gas as an alternative Reporting................... 8 renewable energy source. Closure...................... 9 Long-term care.......... 9 It is the intention of the Minnesota Contact information ... 9 Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) to approve leachate recirculation through permit reissuance or major permit modification at MSWLFs that meet the minimum guidelines outlined herein. This guidance supersedes any previous policy or guidance on leachate recirculation. Current MSWLF design and operation does not promote the degradation of History disposed organic wastes within a In 2006, almost 1.5 million tons of waste reasonable timeframe.
    [Show full text]
  • Pesticide Waste Leachate Toxicity Evaluation and Hazard Quotient Derivation by Allium Assay
    Current World Enviroment Vol. 2(2), 221-224 (2007) Pesticide waste leachate toxicity evaluation and hazard quotient derivation by Allium assay SARVESH and PRABHAKAR P. SINGH Department of Environmental Sciences, Dr. R.M.L. Avadh University, Faizabad - 2244 001 (India) (Received: November 12, 2007; Accepted: December 23, 2007) ABSTRACT This study was envisaged to explore the impact of pesticide solid waste leachate to Allium cepa (common onion) bulbs. Bulbs exposed to the leachate showed hampered root growth and morphological deformities. At 15% and higher concentrations of leachate after 5 days, gall like swellings were noticed around the mitotic zone (zone of root growth). From the dose response th th th th curve, the EC50 values for the 5 , 10 , 15 and 20 day were calculated and the highest EC50 value, th th 24.9%, was for the 5 day while the lowest EC50 value, 20%, was for the 20 day. The EC50 decreases th th th from 5 to the 20 day successively. The 5 day EC50 was used to determine the hazard quotient (HQ) of the pesticide waste leachate from the dumping site. A value of 4.49 as HQ suggests that that there is considerable risk, as any value of HQ above one (>1) is environmentally unacceptable. The response in root growth pattern, residue analysis and the HQ indicates that the leachate is toxic to rot growth of onion and steps for proper management of hazardous waste and leachate are urgently required. Keywords: Allium cepa; bioassay; pesticide waste; leachate; EC50; hazard quotient INTRODUCTION studies6,7 and risk characterization is the estimation of the incidence and severity of the effects likelihood According to a 1997 market estimate, to occur in an environmental compartment due to approximately 5684 million pounds of pesticide actual or predicted exposure to a chemical.
    [Show full text]
  • FULLTEXT01.Pdf
    http://www.diva-portal.org This is the published version of a paper published in Science of the Total Environment. Citation for the original published paper (version of record): Arp, H P., Morin, N A., Andersson, P L., Hale, S E., Wania, F. et al. (2020) The presence, emission and partitioning behavior of polychlorinated biphenyls in waste, leachate and aerosols from Norwegian waste-handling facilities Science of the Total Environment, 715: 1-12 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.136824 Access to the published version may require subscription. N.B. When citing this work, cite the original published paper. Permanent link to this version: http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:umu:diva-169377 Science of the Total Environment 715 (2020) 136824 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Science of the Total Environment journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/scitotenv The presence, emission and partitioning behavior of polychlorinated biphenyls in waste, leachate and aerosols from Norwegian waste- handling facilities Hans Peter H. Arp a,b,⁎, Nicolas A.O. Morin a,c,PatrikL.Anderssond, Sarah E. Hale a, Frank Wania e, Knut Breivik f,g, Gijs D. Breedveld a,h a Norwegian Geotechnical Institute (NGI), P.O. Box 3930, Ullevål Stadion, N-0806 Oslo, Norway b Department of Chemistry, Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU), N-7491 Trondheim, Norway c Environmental and Food Laboratory of Vendée (LEAV), Department of Chemistry, Rond-point Georges Duval CS 80802, 85021 La Roche-sur-Yon, France d Department of Chemistry, Umeå University, SE-90187 Umeå, Sweden e Department of Physical and Environmental Sciences, University of Toronto Scarborough, 1265 Military Trail, Toronto, Ontario M1C 1A4, Canada f Norwegian Institute for Air Research, P.O.
    [Show full text]
  • Effectively Managing Landfill Leachate Odor Control With
    Leachate Management As Seen In Effectively Managing Landfill Leachate Odor Control with Permanganate Oxidizing agents can be introduced to landfill leachate during wastewater treatment to kill the offending bacteria and reduce odor emissions to zero. Permanganate application successfully controls obnoxious odors that are released when storing and transferring landfill leachate. n By John Boll Leachate is formed when liquid passes through a landfill and odor emissions to zero. In the cases described in this article, mixes with degraded waste, picking up dissolved and suspended oxidizers such as hydrogen peroxide and chlorine were tested material. This nasty liquid contains organic and inorganic but not suitable for elimination of the offending odor. However, contaminants as well as heavy metals and pathogens. permanganate application successfully controlled obnoxious odors High levels of odor causing compounds are also found in leachate. that were released when storing and transferring landfill leachate. The primary odorant is volatile hydrogen sulfide (H2S) which When sodium permanganate is injected into leachate, in accumulates to very high levels in closed wet wells, junction boxes minutes, it reacts with dissolved hydrogen sulfide, reducing odor and pipes of collection systems. Hydrogen sulfide is generated by emissions to zero. the conversion of dissolved sulfate by anaerobic bacteria. It has an easily recognizable unpleasant, rotten egg characteristic. It Site #1 Background is detected by the human nose at very low threshold levels, but A landfill in the Northeastern U.S. operates one open cell and can also desensitize the nose after short-term exposure. Hydrogen accepts construction and demolition waste, including wall board. sulfide is a dense, heavier-than-air gas and it accumulates in Numerous neighbor complaints about odors associated with the confined spaces.
    [Show full text]