DOCSLIB.ORG

Analysis of CWMNW Leachate Management Practices

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Analysis of CWMNW Leachate Management Practices May 29, 2020 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM CWMNW Arlington, OR Analysis of Leachate Management Practices for the Chemical Waste Management of the Northwest Facility in Arlington, OR Authors Arthur S. Rood, M.S., K-Spar, Inc Emily A. Caffrey, Ph.D., Radian Scientific, LLC Helen A. Grogan, Ph.D., Cascade Scientific, Inc. Colby D. Mangini, Ph.D., CHP, Paragon Scientific, LLC Principal Investigator John E. Till, Ph.D., Risk Assessment Corporation Submitted to Waste Management RAC Technical Memorandum No. 5 - CWMNW Arlington - 2020 This page is intentionally blank. 1. Executive Summary This technical memorandum provides a review of the radiation doses associated with the landfill leachate management methods and processes at the Chemical Waste Management of the Northwest’s (CWMNW) facility in Arlington, OR. Over time, precipitation that falls on the landfill surface and moisture that is entrained in the wastes moves by gravity through the waste mass – this is referred to as leachate. Leachate moves down by gravity through the waste mass, where it is intercepted by the primary liner and is then channeled by the leachate collection system to the leachate sumps where it is subsequently removed by dedicated pumps. The leachate is then pumped from the sumps via a hose and applied over the surface of three of the four landfill cells as a dust control measure. Over time, and depending on ambient weather conditions, the water phase in the leachate evaporates. CWMNW is located in an arid climate such that the application of leachate as dust control is the primary leachate management method. On days when leachate application to the landfill surface is not possible due to precipitation or snow cover, the leachate is pumped into a tanker truck that transports it to the on-site wastewater treatment plant (WWT-1) where it is offloaded into a storage tank for further treatment. Chemical flocculants are added to the leachate so that flocked solids precipitate to the base of the tank. The remaining liquid is passed through a carbon filter bed that removes most of the remaining contaminants and is then stored in a separate tank. Once the treated liquid passes confirmatory testing the liquids are pumped into one of two lined ponds. Periodically, the flocked solids and carbon filter media from WWT-1 are removed and disposed in the landfill. Leachate samples were taken from each of the four primary sumps on March 25-27, 2020. All samples were analyzed for naturally occurring radionuclides of the U-238 and Th-232 decay series, U-235, K-40, and tritium (H-3). These sampling results were used along with the volume of water and mass of disposed solids as the basis to determine the radionuclide concentrations in the wastes disposed in the landfill. The three exposure scenarios are considered in this review include: 1. Leachate applied as dust control on the surface of the landfill; 2. Disposal of the flocked solids and carbon filter media in the landfill; 3. Disposal of treated leachate in the evaporation ponds. Receptors reviewed include landfill workers that operate on the landfill in full personal protective equipment, a laboratory worker, and the nearest current resident, located approximately 10,700 feet (more than two miles) from the edge of the landfill. This review finds that radiological doses from the leachate management practices at CWMNW are extremely low and do not suggest that any changes are necessary to the current leachate management methods. The maximum annual effective dose to a landfill worker who was assumed to spend 30 minutes per day on the landfill surface for 250 days per year from these practices was 0.22 mrem. Annual effective doses to the nearest resident were less than 0.005 mrem. The dose to a landfill worker from the disposal of flocked solids and carbon filter media from WWT-1 was also extremely low at 0.001 mrem. For comparison purposes, the average annual radiation dose from natural sources alone in the United States for an individual is approximately 310 mrem per year (NCRP 2009). This disposal scenario for the leachate treatment wastes is extremely unlikely in that it assumes all leachate from the landfill is treated through WWT-1; however, only a small fraction of the leachate is actually treated by the system because most of it is applied to the landfill surface as dust R I S K A S S E S S M E N T C ORPORATION 2 CWMNW Arlington, OR control. Further, the doses calculated for leachate being applied as dust control and the doses calculated for flocked solids and carbon filter media disposal are not additive as each scenario is evaluated independently assuming all of the radionuclides in the leachate are processed via that scenario. The highest calculated effective dose attributed to the landfill worker (0.22 mrem yr-1) is orders of magnitude less than the 25 mrem yr–1 recommended dose limit by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI 2009) for unrestricted release of soils from land containing Technologically Enhanced Naturally Occurring Radioactive Materials (TENORM), and the 100 mrem yr-1 public dose limit set by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in 10 CFR § 20.1301. This page is intentionally blank. R I S K A S S E S S M E N T C ORPORATION 2 CWMNW Arlington, OR 1. Introduction This technical memorandum provides a review of the doses associated with the landfill leachate management methods and processes at the Chemical Waste Management of the Northwest’s (CWMNW) facility in Arlington, OR. This review of the doses associated with the leachate management practices has been completed using the March 2020 radioanalytical results of landfill leachate sampling conducted at the request of Oregon Department of Energy. Potential exposure pathways for radionuclides in the leachate are identified and potential doses to landfill employees and the public are evaluated. The CWMNW landfill is located about 11 km south of the Columbia River. Landfill Unit L- 14 is located is on the west side of the facility. Figure 1-1 shows the location of Landfill Unit L-14, the nearest CWMNW building with employees onsite (the CWMNW Laboratory), the nearest resident, and the meteorological station. Figure 1-1. Location CWMNW, Landfill Unit L-14, the nearest CWMNW facility (CWMNW Laboratory), nearest resident, and the meteorological station. Analysis of the Leachate Management Practices 3 at CWMNW 1.1. CWMNW Leachate Management System Landfill Unit L-14 at CWMNW is a double lined Subtitle C design landfill with 4 lined leachate collection sumps that consist of a primary sump, secondary leak detection sump and tertiary leak detection sump collecting leachate from the current 86,490 m2 (21 acres) landfill. The landfill is divided into four cells with each cell designed to drain into a sump (Figure 1-2). Figure 1-2. Landfill Unit L-14 showing the four cells (L-14 cell 1, L-14 cell 2, L-14 cell 3, and L- 14 cell 4), the sumps (S1, S2, S3, and S4), evaporations ponds (Pond-A and Pond-B), and nearby monitoring wells in the Selah formation. Water infiltrates the landfill surface due to precipitation and to a lesser extent from using leachate for dust control by applying it to the top surface of the landfill. Those liquids filter that down through the entire waste mass and are conveyed by the primary liner to the leachate collection sumps at the base of the landfill. Leachate spraying is not expected to result in a large amount of water infiltration because spraying only occurs when evaporation is high. An alternate leachate management practice is utilized during periods of precipitation when leachate cannot be applied. An overview of the two leachate management practices is given in Figure 1-3. R I S K A S S E S S M E N T C ORPORATION 4 CWMNW Arlington, OR Leachate Spray System - Primary L-14 cell 1 L-14 cell 2 L-14 cell 3 L-14 cell 4 Sump Sump Sump Sump Wastewater Evaporation Storage Treatment Pond-A and Tank Plant Pond-B Water only sent to wastewater treatment Chemical flocculants plant during periods of added, particulates rain/snow and snow settle to base cover on landfill Solids/Filter media sent to landfill Figure 1-3. Overview of leachate management at CWMNW. When leachate is used for dust control, the leachate is pumped from the sumps via a hose and sprayed over the surface of the landfill where it evaporates. CWMNW is located in an arid climate which has 109 inches of dry pan evaporation per year. The spraying process continues until the area is adequately wetted. The approximate area of a single spray is illustrated in Figure 1-4. Once the area is adequately wetted, the sprayer is repositioned to a new location and the process repeated. Spraying is performed in areas of no disposal activity, mainly across cells L-14 cell 1, L-14 cell 2, and L-14 cell 3. Annually, the use of leachate for dust control will be distributed over all three cells. Analysis of the Leachate Management Practices 5 at CWMNW Figure 1-4. Google Earth view of the eastern portion of landfill L-14 showing the wetted spray area (dark grey regions) with the sprayer moving north to three other locations. Runoff from the spray operations is collected using the landfill internal stormwater collection system and sent to a separate lined stormwater pond at the north end of the current landfill. The calculated area of the southern wetted region is 337 m2. An alternative leachate management practice is used when evapotranspiration is poor. On days where precipitation is occurring, or the ground is covered with snow, the leachate is pumped into a tanker truck that transports the leachate to the wastewater treatment plant-1 (WWT-1) where it is offloaded into a storage tank.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • Potential for Using Constructed Wetlands to Treat Landfill Leachate: Literature Review and Pilot Study Design
    Potential for Using Constructed Wetlands to Treat Landfill Leachate: Literature Review and Pilot Study Design Sarah K. Liehr and G. Michael Sloop Department of Civil Engineering North Carolina State University Raleigh, NC 27695 Special Report Series No. 17 January 1996 The research on which this report is based was financed by the Water Resources Research Institute of The University of North Carolina. Contents of this publication do not necessarily reflect the views and policies of the Water Resources Research Institute nor does mention of trade names or commercial products constitute their endorsement or recommendation for use by the Institute or the State of North Carolina. WRRI Project No. 70125 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS We would like to thank Ray Church, Dennis Burks, Sam Hawes, Tim Heistand, and Glenn Walker of New Hanover County Environmental Management for compiling data and assisting in all aspects of construction and operation of the pilot wetland study at the New Hanover County Landfill near Wilmington, North Carolina. We would also like to thank Barbara Doll, Halford House, and Dr. Bob Rubin for their participation in planning the design for the pilot wetland study. We appreciate valuable input from Robert Mackey of Post, Buckley, Schuh & Jernigan, Inc. during the design of the pilot study. Finally, we would like to thank Jeff Masters for his input in compiling this report. ii ABSTRACf All municipal landfills are susceptible to infiltration by precipitation and runoff. As this water infiltrates the landfill, many substances leach from the fill including oxygen demanding organic compounds, suspended solids, nitrogen compounds, phosphorus, metals, and toxic organics. The composition of the leachate varies tremendously among landfills, but concentrations of several of these components may be quite high.
    [Show full text]
  • Treatment of Landfill Leachate Using Palm Oil Mill Effluent
    processes Article Treatment of Landfill Leachate Using Palm Oil Mill Effluent Tawfiq J. H. Banch 1, Marlia M. Hanafiah 1,2,*, Salem S. Abu Amr 3, Abbas F. M. Alkarkhi 3 and Mohammed Hasan 1 1 Department of Earth Sciences and Environment, Faculty of Science and Technology, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Bangi 43600, Selangor, Malaysia; [email protected] (T.J.H.B.); [email protected] (M.H.) 2 Centre for Tropical Climate Change System, Institute of Climate Change, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Bangi 43600, Selangor, Malaysia 3 Universiti Kuala Lumpur Business School (Unikl bis), Kuala Lumpur 50250, Malaysia; [email protected] (S.S.A.A.); [email protected] (A.F.M.A.) * Correspondence: [email protected] Received: 18 April 2020; Accepted: 14 May 2020; Published: 18 May 2020 Abstract: Sanitary landfilling is the most common method of removing urban solid waste in developing countries. Landfills contain high levels of organic materials, ammonia, and heavy metals, thereby producing leachate which causes a possible future pollution of ground and surface water. Recently, agricultural waste was considered a co-substratum to promote the biodegradation of organics in industrial wastewater. The use of low-cost and natural materials for wastewater treatment is now being considered by many researchers. In this study, palm oil mill effluent (POME) was used for treating stabilized leachate from old landfill. A set of preliminary experiments using different POME/leachate ratios and aeration times was performed to identify the setting of experimental design and optimize the effect of employing POME on four responses: chemical oxygen demand (COD), total suspended solids (TSS), color, and ammoniacal nitrogen (NH3-N).
    [Show full text]
  • Differences in the Composition of Leachate from Active and Non
    water Article Differences in the Composition of Leachate from Active and Non-Operational Municipal Waste Landfills in Poland Aleksandra Wdowczyk * and Agata Szyma ´nska-Pulikowska Faculty of Environmental Engineering and Geodesy, Institute of Environmental Engineering, Wrocław University of Environmental and Life Sciences, pl. Grunwaldzki 24, 50-363 Wrocław, Poland; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +48-71-320-5544 Received: 27 September 2020; Accepted: 5 November 2020; Published: 8 November 2020 Abstract: Leachate formation is one of the many environmental hazards associated with landfilling. The leachate may migrate from the landfill to surface water and groundwater, posing a potential threat to aquatic ecosystems. Moreover, its harmful effect on human health and life has been proven. Due to the risks that landfill leachates may pose, it is necessary to control the state of the environment in their surroundings. The paper presents an example of the application of selected statistical methods (basic statistics, statistical tests, principal component analysis) to assess the impact of individual pollution indicators on the quality of landfill leachates. The conducted analysis showed the existence of significant differences between the surveyed active (Legnica, Jawor) and non-operational (Wrocław, Bielawa) landfills in Poland. These differences were especially visible in the cases of the following: electric conductivity (EC) (non-operational landfills 1915–5075 µS/cm, active 5093–11,370 µS/cm), concentrations of total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN) (non-operational landfills 0.18–294.5 mg N/dm3, active 167.56–907.4 mg N/dm3), chemical oxygen demand (COD), organic nitrogen (ON), ammonium nitrogen (AN), total solids (TS), total dissolved solids (TDS), total suspended solids (TSS), sulfates, chlorides, sodium, potassium, calcium, magnesium and nickel.
    [Show full text]
  • Evaluation of Silage Leachate and Runoff Collection Systems on Three Wisconsin Dairy Farms
    Evaluation of Silage Leachate and Runoff Collection Systems on Three Wisconsin Dairy Farms Aaron Wunderlin1, Eric Cooley1, Becky Larson2, Callie Herron1, Dennis Frame1, Amber Radatz1, Kevan Klingberg1, Tim Radatz1 and Michael Holly2 1University of Wisconsin – Discovery Farms® Program 2University of Wisconsin – Biological Systems Engineering Department 4/11/2016 (Revised 5/31/16) Table of Contents Abstract ........................................................................................................................................... 1 1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 2 2. Material and methods ................................................................................................................ 7 2.1. Study design and implementation .................................................................................... 7 2.2. Site descriptions ................................................................................................................ 8 2.2.1. Farm A leachate collection system .......................................................................... 8 2.2.2. Farm B leachate collection system ........................................................................ 10 2.2.3. Farm C Leachate collection system ........................................................................ 13 2.3. Instrumentation .............................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Leachate Ecotoxicity - Characterization and Risk Assessment
    Leachate ecotoxicity - characterization and risk assessment Olof Berglund Chemical Ecology & Ecotoxicology Department of Ecology Lund University Leachate ecotoxicity • To compare toxic potency of different leachates, and effects of treatment methods - combine chemical and toxicological characterization • For environmental risk assessments -use ecotoxicological approaches with endpoints on population, community or ecosystem level Source • How do you estimate leachate toxicity? • How do you assess impact on recipient? Leachate Recipient • Chemical and toxicological characterization • Environmental risk assessments Landfill leachates • Complex mixture of organic and inorganic constituents • Characterization of leachates • Information needed for: – selection of treatment methods – risk assessments of landfill emissions Xenobiotic organic compounds Baun et al. 2004 Pesticides Phtalates Baun et al. 2004 What information? • Information on compounds present and concentrations • Limitations in traditional chemical analyses - time, money and detection limits • Biological effects - toxicity and environmental impact Leachate toxicity • To predict leachate toxicity both toxicological and chemical characterization required • Toxicological - we cannot analyze and detect everything • Chemical - toxicity tests do not reveal the identity of the potential problematic compounds Battery-of-tests approach Exposure Test Organism Endpoint time MicrotoxTM bacteria 15 min luminescence Selenastrum algae 96h growth mortality Daphnia zooplankton 48h (immobility)
    [Show full text]
  • Pesticides in Norwegian Landfill Leachates
    8 The Open Environmental & Biological Monitoring Journal, 2008, 1, 8-15 Pesticides in Norwegian Landfill Leachates K. Haarstad* and T. Mæhlum Bioforsk Soil and Environment, Department of Ecological Engineering, Ås, Norway Abstract: Pesticides have been analyzed in 28 grab samples of untreated and 12 samples of treated leachate from eight Norwegian municipal solid waste (MSW) landfills, over a period of 10 years, with the purpose to screen for compounds and to evaluate the removal in different treatment systems. Also 1 grab samples of leachate sediments is included. A total of 12 compounds were detected. The most frequently detected group of compounds are the phenoxy acids, and they also occur in highest concentrations, up to 230 μg/l for mecoprop, in this study. Also three fungicides and one insecticide were detected, but in much lower concentrations. All samples exceeded the maximum limit value (MLV) for the sum concen- tration of pesticides in drinking water (0.5 μg/l), and six compounds exceeded the environmental toxicity limit (ETL). Re- verse osmosis showed good removal of phenoxy acids, while sequential batch reactor aerobic treatment, as well as aerated lagoons in combination with wetlands, groundwater infiltration and reactor treatment showed slightly lower removal. Key Words: Municipal solid waste (MSW) landfills, leachate, pesticides. INTRODUCTION on leachate monitoring, phenoxy acids and chlorinated obso- lete pesticides such as DDT, lindane and endosulfan, should Pesticides are widely used both in agriculture and for- be analysed every fifth year [8]. estry, and in other plant productions such as in greenhouses and gardens, and in maintaining roads, railroads and other Landfill leachate contains high concentrations of sus- open areas, the usage on arable land varying from <1 kg/ha pended and soluble organic matter and thus has a potential of to 14 kg/ha [1].
    [Show full text]
  • Impact of Effluent from the Leachate Treatment Plant of Taman Beringin
    processes Article Impact of Effluent from the Leachate Treatment Plant of Taman Beringin Solid Waste Transfer Station on the Quality of Jinjang River Pui Mun Chin 1 , Aine Nazira Naim 1, Fatihah Suja 1,* and Muhammad Fadly Ahmad Usul 2 1 Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering and Built Environment, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Bangi Selangor 43600, Malaysia; [email protected] (P.M.C.); [email protected] (A.N.N.) 2 Department of Solid Waste Management, Ministry of Housing and Local Government, 51 Persiaran Perdana, Presint 4, Putrajaya 62100, Malaysia; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +60-1-9304-2621 Received: 3 September 2020; Accepted: 19 November 2020; Published: 27 November 2020 Abstract: Rapid population growth has contributed to increased solid waste generated in Malaysia. Most landfills that have reached the design capacity are now facing closure. Taman Beringin Landfill was officially closed, so the Taman Beringin Solid Waste Transfer Station was built to manage the relocation, consolidation, and transportation of solid waste to Bukit Tagar Sanitary Landfill. Leachates are generated as a consequence of rainwater percolation through waste and biochemical processes in waste cells. Leachate treatment is needed, as leachates cause environmental pollution and harm human health. This study investigates the impact of treated leachate discharge from a Leachate Treatment Plant (LTP) on the Jinjang River water quality. The performance of the LTP in Taman Beringin Solid Waste Transfer Station was also assessed. Leachate samples were taken at the LTP’s anoxic tank, aeration tank, secondary clarifier tank, and final discharge point, whereas river water samples were taken upstream and downstream of Jinjang River.
    [Show full text]