Leachate Treatment

Jae K. (Jim) Park

Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering
University of Wisconsin-Madison

1
 Background (1)
A complex organic waste that changes with time
Problematic components
Degradable & nondegradable organics
Hazardous organics and inorganics
Ammonia, nitrate, and nitrite
Suspended solids
Color and odor
Pathogens
Treatment experience
Lab & pilot scale: good treatment, large data base
Field scale: limited data base
2
 Background (2)
Leachate disposal can be costly.
Development of the disposal process should take
into account several areas
Regulatory requirements
Nature of leachate
Operational considerations
Available disposal options
Failure to solve a problem with all constraints can
lead to
High capital and operating costs
Difficulty in operation
Compliance related problems

3
Treatment Options

Off-site On-site
facility facility

Partial
Complete

Disposal
Effluents
Sludges
etc.
4
Leachate Properties Affecting Treatment
Flow Fluctuation
10

m3/haday
Flow

0
0 5 10 15 20 25
Time, months
Options
Overdesign and treat peak flow
Equalize flow in landfill (recycle) or storage
tanks
5
Leachate Properties Affecting Treatment
Contaminant Concentration Fluctuation

Some peak quickly and decline: e.g., BOD

Some persist for long periods: e.g., NH3-N
Daily and seasonal variations occur

Options
Same as for flow
Modify treatment system

6
Leachate Properties Affecting Treatment
Organic Contaminants

Young Leachate - Biological Treatment

BOD in 10,000s
Mostly VFA
Older Leachate - Carbon Adsorption
BODs in 100s; COD in 1,000s
Humic and fulvic acids
Priority organics

7
Leachate Properties Affecting Treatment
Nitrogen and Heavy Metals

Nitrogen
Ammonia (NH3-N) - Air Stripping
Organic (Org-N) - Chlorination
Combined - 100s mg/L - Biouptake,
Biological Nitrification/Denitrification

Heavy Metals - Chemical Precipitation

Iron (Fe) mainly; Zn, Pb, Cu

8
Leachate Properties Affecting Treatment
Conservative Ions and Acidic pH
Conservative Ions - Reverse Osmosis
High TDS
Chloride
Sulfate
Sodium

Acidic pH - Neutralization

9
 Planning Treatment and Disposal
Estimate leachate flow, Q
WBM/HELP Q
Variations with site age
Estimate leachate contaminant t
conc., C C
Type
Variations with age
Identify treatment and disposal t
options with discharge standards
and cost
Select treatment and disposal system
Introduce uncertainty
Maintain flexibility
10
 Changes in Landfill Leachate Quality
Phase 1 Phase 4 Phase 5
Adjustment Methanogentic Maturation
Phase 3
Acetogenic COD
Phase 2
Concentration

Transition
pH

NH3

Landfill age

11
 Leachate Management Practices in the U.S.
On-site treatment/
Evaporation (2.3%) sewer or POTW (3.8%)
POTW Disposal
Private/industrial (39.9%)
treatment(13.5%)

On-site
treatment
(7.5%)

Not collected
(9.0%)

Other (9.7%) Sewer discharge (14.3%)

POTW: Publicly Owned Treatment Work 12
Constructed Wetland
Uses
Polishing treatment
Complete treatment
Advantages
Relatively inexpensive to build/operate
Associated with green technologies
Wetlands credits
Disadvantages
Large land requirement
Cold weather
Mediocre results especially for complete treatment
systems
13
Reed Bed for Effluent Polishing

14
14
Reed Bed

15
Reed Bed Configuration

16
Performance of Reed Bed

17
Performance of Reed Bed

18
Typical Performance of Chapel Farm
Landfill Leachate Treatment Plant
Leachate Leachate
Parameter Cell 1 Cell 2 Effluent
pH 7.0 6.9 8.8
Alkalinity (mg/L as CaCO3) 5,150 5,200 984
COD 10,600 10,400 491
BOD 4,100 4,200 3
TOC 3,070 2,980 80
Fatty acids (as C) 1,702 1,946 ND
Acetic 576 344 ND
Propionic 470 1,290 ND
iso-Butyric 128 44 ND
n-Butytic 180 34 ND
iso-Valeric 180 128 ND
n-Valeric 168 106 ND
Ammonia (mg-N/L) 412 585 0.3
Nitrate (mg-N/L) < 0.2 0.5 27.2
Nitrite (mg-N/L) 0.3 0.3 < 0.1
Sulfate (mg/L) 321 63 211
Phosphate (mg/L) 1.8 3.3 < 0.1 19
Typical Performance of Chapel Farm
Landfill Leachate Treatment Plant
Leachate Leachate
Parameter Cell 1 Cell 2 Effluent
Chloride (mg/L) 4,670 2,180 3,870
Sodium (mg/L) 1,360 1,210 1,070
Magnesium (mg/L) 420 310 284
Potassium (mg/L) 900 840 710
Calcium (mg/L) 1,040 1,030 25
Chromium (mg/L) 0.05 0.06 < 0.04
Manganese (mg/L) 2.7 4.0 < 0.1
Iron (mg/L) 340 126 0.6
Nickel (mg/L) 0.10 0.07 0.06
Copper (mg/L) 0.04 0.03 0.04
Zinc (mg/L) 0.09 0.22 0.03
Cadmium (mg/L) 0.02 0.04 < 0.01
Lead (mg/L) 0.2 0.13 < 0.04
Arsenic (mg/L) 0.010 0.012 0.007

20
Leachate Treatment

Off-Site
Removal by road tanker to sewage works
Removal via pipeline or sewer to POTWs
Most common
On-Site
Biological
Physical/Chemical
Mixed

21
 Off-Site Treatment
Expected Treatment in POTW

Secondary Treatment
Excellent Removal
BOD, SS, coliforms
Some removal
Metals (Fe, Zn), organics, NH3-N
Little Removal
Metals (Ni, Al), solvents, Cl-, Na+

22
Off-Site Treatment
Sewer Surcharges

Wisconsin (1986), 6 cities

Flow ($/1000 gal) BOD ($/lb)
Average 0.64 0.12
Range 0.11~1.20 0.05~0.25
Example: 50 acre site with 12 precipitation/yr,
BOD - 10,000 mg/L, and average $ above; then
~ $150,000/yr

23
 Off-Site Treatment
Impact of Leachate on POTW
Little data available
Lab co-treatment studies with sewage
2% by volume is OK
But organic load is much higher (> 50%)
Expect
Increased oxygen and P required
Sludge production: biomass, metal precipitates
Foaming, Odors
Effluent: TDS, NH3-N, resistant organic
No adverse impact - Metro Toronto (1985)

24
 Typical Performance of Chapel Farm
Landfill Leachate Treatment Plant
% Leachate (V/V%)
Parameters Control
0.2% 1% 10% 25% 50%
Operating conditions
Aeration time (hrs) 6 6 6 15 15 15
Solids retention time (days) 7 7 7 25 25 25
Mixed liquor temp. (C) 225 225 225 225 225 225
pH 7.30.4 7.30.2 7.20.2 7.20.2 7.10.1 6.21.0
DO (mg/L) 8.00.2 8.10.4 7.90.5 7.90.5 8.40.2 9.01.6
MLSS (mg/L) 1120136 105037 1230106 114058 139019 170095
MLVSS/MLSS ratio 0.63 0.63 0.63 0.70 0.59 0.63
F/M ratio (kg BOD/kg TS/day) 0.31 0.38 0.45 0.30 0.25 0.24
Respiration rate (mg O2/mg VS/hr) 17.2 15 15.6 13.3 13.7 9.8
Sludge volume index (mL/g) 6710 747 656 728 656 506
Removal efficiencies
BOD removal (%) 90 93 90 74 68 62
COD removal (%) 88 86 80 73 68 63
SS removal (%) 89 89 89 93 94 96
TKN removal (%) 61 59 58 36 31 32
Ammonia removal (%) 54 49 50 28 30 31
Color (Influent/Effluent)
Dominant wave length (nm) 500~505 500~505 500~505 575~580 575~580 575~580
Hue Green Green Green Yellow Yellow Yellow
Luminance (%) 84/84 76/77 79/79 82/82 76/77 47/51
Purity (%) 3/3 3/3 3/3 20/20 30/30 40/40
MLSS: mixed liquor suspended solids; MLVSS: ML volatile SS; F/M: food/microorganisms 25
On-Site Treatment
Physical/Chemical Processes
Coagulation/flocculation/settlement
pH control and aeration/air stripping
Activated carbon adsorption
Reverse osmosis
Oxidation with hydrogen peroxide
Oxidation with hypochlorite
Degassing Evaporation
Biological (http://www.fao.org/DOCREP/003/V9922E/V9922E05.htm)
Aerobic: trickling filter, activated sludge, aerated lagoon,
rotating biological contactor, sequencing batch reactor (SBR)
Anaerobic: submerged filter, upflow anaerobic sludge blanket
(UASB)
Anoxic: denitrification
Mixed
Land treatment
Vegetated ditch/root zone treatment
26
 Trickling Filter

Plastic random packing

Plastic cross-flow packing 27

 Sequencing Batch Reactor (SBR)
Suspended growth system
Completely mixed mode; batch mode with discontinuous flow
Typical F/M = 0.05~0.1 (comparable to an extended aeration
type process)

1 2 3
Influent

Mixing

Fill React Settle

4 5
Effluent

Draw Idle
28
Aerated Lagoons
Suspended growth system
Comletely mixed mode
Contact time limited to hydraulic
retention time due to no recycle of sludge
Limited effluent quality

Raw
wastewater Effluent
Surface
aerator

29
Rotating Biological Contactor (RBC) (1)
Attached growth system
Plug flow mode
Design based on
specific surface area
Aeration provided
by rotating disks
Better performance
than other fixed-
film systems due to
lower organic
loading per mass of
biomass, longer
detention time, and
little short-circuiting

30
Rotating Biological Contactor (RBC) (2)

31
Anaerobic Fixed Film Reactor
Sludge age: > 100 days
VSS: > 20,000 mg/L
Increased efficiency and rapid
elution of toxic sludge
Not good for wastes containing a
large portion of particulates and/or
carbohydrates due to clogging
Possible to treat low strength
waste at nominal temperatures
economically
Effluent recycle (sufficient alkalinity) to raise pH to 7
Possible buildup of nonbiodegradable solids in reactor
Loading rate: 0.42~3.4 kg COD/m3day at 25C; 60~80% COD
removal; e.g. Landfill leachate: pH 5.4, COD 54,000 mg/L, 45%
fatty acids, loading 7.9 kg COD/m3day 89% removal

32
Upflow Anaerobic Sludge Blanket
(UASB) Reactor

High sludge age at high

loadings with separation of
gas from the sludge solids
VSS: 20,000 ~ 150,000 mg/L
Sugar-beet waste: reactor size
800 m3, loading 10 kg
COD/m3day, and HRT 4 hrs
treatment efficiency 80%
Difficult to maintain low effluent SS levels and
occasional unexplained biomass washout

33
Achievable Effluent Levels by Chemical Precipitation
Metal Achievable eff. Technology
conc. (mg/L)
0.05 Sulfide precipitation/filtration
Arsenic 0.06 Carbon adsorption
0.005 Ferric hydroxide co-precipitation
Barium 0.5 Sulfate precipitation
0.05 Hydroxide precipitation at pH 10-11
Cadmium 0.05 Co-precipitation with ferric hydroxide
0.008 Sulfide precipitation
Copper 0.02~0.07 Hydroxide precipitation
0.01~0.02 Sulfide precipitation
Sulfide precipitation
Mercury 0.01~0.02 Alum co-precipitation
Ferric hydroxide co-precipitation
Ion exchange
Nickel 0.12 Hydroxide precipitation at pH 10
Selenium 0.05 Sulfide precipitation
Zinc 0.1 Hydroxide precipitation at pH 11
34
 On-Site Treatment
Biological Treatment

Essential if BOD > 50 mg/L

Expect
BOD removal
SS removal with sedimentation
NH3-N and Org-N removal by biouptake and
nitrification
Metal removal by biosorption and precipitation at
oxides and carbonates
Priority organics removal

35
 On-Site Treatment
Biological Treatment Process Types

Biomass in Suspension
No Biomass Recycle
Facultative pond, aerated lagoon
Biomass Recycle
Activated sludge
Biomass Attached
RBC, packed bed filter, trickling filter

36
 Leachate Biodegradation Phases
Phase 1: Removal of high M.W. humic
carbohydrate-like organics - adsorption to
microorganisms
Phase 2: Removal of free volatile fatty acids -
decrease in ORP, conductivity, and DO
Phase 3: Formation of intermediates - excretion of
high M.W. humic carbohydrate-like organics
Phase 4: Removal of high M.W. humic
carbohydrate-like organics

37
 Composition of Biologically
Treated Leachate Effluent (1)
Schmitzer and Kahn (1972)
Polymerized waste product
Inert material from lyzed cells
20~50% of effluent COD (M.W.: 500~30,000)
Reduced removal of heavy metals due to chelation
Reduced removal of pathogens
Source of color

38
Composition of Biologically
Treated Leachate Effluent (2)

Painter et al. (1961); Bunch et al. (1961)

Humic material: 65~75%
High molecular weight: 21~49%
Rebhun and Manka (1971)
Humic substances: 39~45%
Hurst and Burges (1967)
Refractory organics: humic acid (M.W. -
5000~100,000); fulvic acid (2,000~10,000)

39
Composition of Biologically
Treated Leachate Effluent (3)
Barker and Somers (1970); Finch et al. (1972)
Certain high M.W. carbohydrates alone or in
combination with humic material are resistant
to microbial attack, which were isolated from
exocellular polysaccharides.
High M.W. carbohydrates were excreted at the
end of the logarithmic growth phase and
appeared to help forming flocs by bridging of
bacterial cells.

40
 Leachate Treatment Performance
R.F. Weston Inc. (1974)
Biological treatment
No COD decrease after 184 hrs of aeration
(COD/TOC=2.1; BOD/COD=0.03)
Activated carbon
59~94% COD removal - impractical
Good for old stabilized leachate treatment
Ozonation
22% COD removal after four hour test
Not promising because of strong resistance of
fatty acids, especially acetic acids, to ozone

41
 On-Site Treatment
Biotreatability - Aerobic, Suspended
BOD (COD), mg/L Retention
Source In Out Time, day
Boyle & Ham 2,900 200 5
Uloth & Mavinc 36,000 32 20
Chian & DeWalle (35,200) (1,030) 7
Spencer & Farqunar (15,200) (260) 10
pH 5.1 8.7
Fe, mg/L 960 2.9 99.7% removal
Zn, mg/L 223 1.4 99.2% removal
Cd, mg/L 0.39 0.009 99.7% removal
Pb, mg/L 1.4 0.2 83.6% removal
Ni, mg/L 0.65 0.18 71.9% removal
Moderate inhibition in a few cases, 20~24C, lime &
PO4 added
42
Buckden South
Landfill Site,
Cambridgeshire

43
Gairloch Landfill Site,
Northern Scotland

Bryn Posteg Landfill Site,

Wales
44
 On-Site Treatment
Biological Treatment - Field Example (1)

Posteg Landfill, Wales, UK

PO4 Aerated pond
(nutrient)
Lined HDPE
V = 1,000 m3 Facultative pond Sewer
0~150 m3/d HRT = 10 days Settling: SVI = 40
F/M 0.25
Temp. = 4C

Sludge to landfill

45
On-Site Treatment
Biological Treatment - Field Example (2)

Posteg Landfill, Wales, UK

Contaminant Influent Effluent
Peak Ave.
BOD5, mg/L > 10,000 3,700 24
NH3-N, mg/L >1,000 129 12
Fe, mg/L >500 254 3.8
pH 5.8 8.0
Cost
Capital - $120,000 (1985)
O&M - $1/1000 gal
Sewer surcharge without treatment - $9/1000 gal
Savings - $68,000/yr
46
 On-Site Treatment
Biological Treatment - Field Example (3)
Grows Landfill, Tullytown, PA
EPA supported demonstration project
Data source: Steiner & Fungaroli (1979)
Conditions:
Landfill - 50 acre, 800 ton/day, 85% MSW
Treatment to meet sewer standards
Flow: variable, ave. 10~15 gal/min
Operating problems:
NH3-N toxicity
PO4-P deficiency
Winter: reactor temp. 35F

47
 On-Site Treatment
Biological Treatment - Field Example (4)
Grows Landfill, Tullytown, PA
CaO
Chemical Treatment HRT = 1 day
Mixed reactor pH 10.5
Sedimentation
Metallic
sludge
Ammonia Stripping
Aerated pond HRT = 1.8 day
NH3-N
H3PO4
Activated Sludge pH = 7.5
Biomass recycle F/M = 0.3
Biosludge
Cl2
Chlorination
N2
Sewer
48
 On-Site Treatment
Biological Treatment - Field Example
Grows Landfill, Tullytown, PA
Efficiency (average)
Parameter Concentration, mg/L % removal
Standard Influent Effluent
BOD5 100 8,480 66 99
NH4-N 35 695 30 96
SS - 585 84 86
Fe 7 9.7 0.7 93
Cl- - 3,172 2,925 -

49
On-Site Treatment
Aerobic Biological Treatment - Design
Loading: F/M < 0.3 kg BOD/kg VSS/day
SRT > 10 days (20C); 20 days (10C)
Sludge production: 1 kg TSS/kg BOD removed
O2 supply: high for young leachates
PO4-P supplement: usually required
NH3-N conversion: biomass uptake at BOD:N:P =
100:5:1; nitrification may dictate design for old
leachate, may be inhibitory at high conc.
Recycle of biomass: not required for high strength
leachate
Precipitate formation: CaCO3 & Fe2O3 can coat
pump impellers and aeration components
Sequencing batch reactor (SBR): < 100 m3/day
SRT: Solids retention time
50
On-Site Treatment
Anaerobic Biological Treatment (1)
Comparison of Anaerobic vs. Aerobic
If BOD5 > 1,000 mg/L, then

No O2 required
Anaerobic Lower biomass produced
CH4 is useable

Aerobic Remove NH3-N

Increase BOD & SS removal

51
On-Site Treatment
Anaerobic Biological Treatment (2)
Anaerobic Fixed Film Reactors (AFFR)
Films better than digesters
Biomass washout reduced
Higher loading possible
Kinetically better
Experience
Field - limited, WMI, Milwaukee
Laboratory: support medium - granular
carbon, plastic film, sand, plastic rings; COD
removals - 90~97%

52
 On-Site Treatment
Composite System
SW: 700 ton/day; Leachate: 80 m3/day

Raw Leachate
A CaO Neutralize pH
Precipitate metals
Chemical Precipitation
Sludge
B
Anaerobic Fixed Film PO4-P BOD removal, 32C
Plastic rings
Reactor 4 kg COD/m3/day
CH4 BOD removal
Aerated Lagoon 70 day HRT, 20C
C Nitrification
Facultative Pond SS removal
D 70 day HRT, 20C
Denitrification
Effluent
53
 On-Site Treatment
Composite System
Treatment Efficiency - Pilot Scale
Type A B C D
COD 22,800 - 693 325
BOD5 16,100 - 254 15
TOC 8,100 - 224 120
Humic Acid 416 - 368 381
NH3-N 406 - 382 37
Fe 937 155 12 1.4
Zn 68 4 0.5 0.1
Ca 1,740 2,020 108 27
Cl- 1,110 - 1,015 1,080
SO42- 831 - 28 54
Alkalinity 3,850 4,200 2,563 1,800
TDS 15,300 19,200 4,220 4,215
pH 5.6 7.2 - -

54
 On-Site Treatment
Anaerobic Upflow Filter
Omega Hills Landfill, Milwaukee, WMI (1987)
Designed for discharge into a POTW
V = 200,000 gal
Holding Tank HRT = 2 days
Mixer
Heat Exchanger (Landfill/Filter Gas)
V = 56,500 ft3; HRT = 7.4 day;
Media Filter Loading = 442 lb/day/1000 ft3;
Dia. = 30 ft

Media depth = 20 ft; T = 95F;

Dia. = 20 ft; Qr/Q = 10/1
POTW Solids Contact Clarifier
Dia. = 30 ft
55
Omega Hills Landfill Leachate
Treatment Facility

56
 On-Site Treatment
Omega Hills Landfill Operation
Design Conditions Field Conditions
100,000 gal/day (Flow) 20,000~30,000 gal/day
38,000 mg/L (BOD) 7,000 mg/L (ave.)
900 lb/day/1000 ft3 (Loading) 67 lb/day/1000 ft3
Excellent Treatment
Contaminant Influent Effluent
BOD 3,700~24,000 350~700
TSS 2,500~15,000 100~500
Cd 0.1 0.08
Cu 1.84 0.21
Pb 3.19 0.51
Ni 1.39 0.68
Zn 9.47 1.61
Seeded with manure
Underloaded - needs other high strength organic wastes

57
On-Site Treatment
Physical/Chemical Processes
Used with bioprocesses except for old leachate (BOD5
< 50 mg/L) and contaminated groundwater
Processes For Removal of
Carbon Adsorption Nonbiodegradable organics: solvents,
pesticides, humic acids, etc.
Chemical Precipitation Heavy metals: Fe, Zn, etc.
Suspended solids
Air Stripping NH3-N
Volatile solvents
Granular Filtration Suspended solids
Membranes - Conservative: organics, irons: Cl
reverse osmosis Na+, etc.

58
 On-Site Treatment
Physical/Chemical Processes
Addition of simple chemicals followed by a sequence
of mixing, coagulation/flocculation, and settlement
Chemicals tested:
Hydrated lime
Quick lime
Sodium hydroxide
Magnesium hydroxide
Alum
Ferric chloride
Ferric sulfate
Polymeric coagulant aids

59
 On-Site Treatment
Physical/Chemical Processes - Examples
Influent Lime
Chemical
Precipitation Precipitate metals

Sedimentation Settle precipitates

Sludge
Backwash Clarify influent to
Granular carbon adsorption
Filtration

Carbon Adsorption Adsorb TOC and

solvents
Carbon regeneration
plus afterburner at Destroy TOC and
Effluent 1200C solvents

60
On-Site Treatment
Reverse Osmosis
Leachate
STORK-Wafilin,VAM, Wijster, NL
1,000,000 tons (1986)
Tubular, Concentrate Waste disposal: mainly composting
cellulose-
acetate
Ultrasil - cleansing
Spiral Oxonia - disinfection
wound,
composite Costs
Permeate Capital: $2.5 106 (US, 1988)
Operating: 1.4/gal (US, 1989)
Stream Landfill
> 80% Liquid < 20%
< 2% Contaminants > 98%
61
 On-Site Treatment
RO Performance (1989)
Parameter Leachate Permeate Concentrate
(estimated)
Flow , gpm 154 119 (35)
COD, mg/L 2,860 3 (15,000)
BOD, mg/L 217 2 (1,100)
TKN, mg/L 955 5* (4,700)
Cl, mg/L 3,160 7 (15,500)
Zn, mg/L 0.63 0.03 (3.0)
Cu, mg/L 0.17 0.02 (0.7)
Ni, mg/L 1.22 0.51 (3.5)
AOX**, mg/L 4.9 0.7 -
* Does not meet discharge standard
** Adsorbable Organic Halides

Potential Concentrate Treatment

Evaporation (30% solids) + heat drying (96% solids)
62
Millersville Leachate Treatment Facility

63
Millersville Landfill Leachate Treatment
Facility Design and Operating Parameters

Item Value
Flow (gpd) 25,000
Reactor volume (gallons) 224,100
Hydraulic residence time (days) 2.48
Sludge age (days) 25
MLVSS (mg/L) 4,000
Loading (F/M) (g COD/g VSS/day) 0.2
Nutrients (COD:N:P) 100:2:0.38
Sludge yield (g VSS/g COD) 0.3
Aeration type Fine bubble
64
Projected Leachate Quality
and Discharge Standards
Korean Leachate Treatment Facilities
Constituent Influent Effluent
(mg/L) (mg/L)
COD 5000 200
BOD 2000 30
Ammonia Nitrogen 1200 25
Total nitrogen N/A 100
TSS N/A 30
Q = 6,500 m3/day
65
 Proposed Leachate Treatment
Equalization Chemical
Tank Precipitation Air
Stripping
Leachate
Chemical Remove
Equalize flow Remove heavy ammonia
metals and solids (optional)
(optional)
Reed bed Chemical
SBR
Discharge
Sludge
wasting
Polish the effluent Remove organics,
ammonia, nitrite/nitrate,
and toxic compounds
66
Cost Estimates
No fertilizer Fertilizer No NH3 stripping
Design Services
1. Preliminary $165,000 $165,000 $165,000
2. Final $636,000 $636,000 $636,000
Construction
1. Mechanical $34,000,000 $36,000,000 $32,500,000
2. Wet lands $6,000,000 $6,000,000 $24,300,000
Start-up & Training $124,000 $124,000 $124,000
Total Cost $40,955,000 $42,955,000 $57,755,000

67
 Landfill Leachate Treatmen Decisions
New/Young Landfill
Neutralization (NaOH, lime, pH = 7.5)
Biological Treatment
Anaerobic (UASB)
Aerobic (long SRT)
POTW
o Activated Sludge
Land
o Sequencing Batch Reactor (SBR)
o Nitrification/Denitrification
Disinfection Large surface water
Membrane Process/Activated Carbon Small surface
water
Old Landfill: eliminate UASB Biological
Sludges & Concentrations: landfill, POTW

68
Aerobic Landfill Bioreactor

69
Landfill as a Bioreactor

Measure of Success
Faster landfill stabilization
Increased air space
Reduced leachate management costs
Reduced gases and odors
Reduced long-term care costs
Possibly, mining to regenerate cover material - a
perpetual landfill?

70
Leachate Recirculation (1)
Can be used during the early stages when leachate
production quantities are low.
Can be used in later stages to eliminate problems
of off-site transport during peak production periods
or during downtimes of the transport devices.
Advantages
Attenuation of leachate strength/quantity
Increased rate of landfill stabilization
Enhanced gas production rates
Immobilization of metals from landfill material
Improved landfill settling rates
Increased compaction rates

71
Leachate Recirculation (2)

Disadvantages
Ponding/localized accumulation of leachate
Severe localized subsidence/side slope stability
problems
Other management requirement due to excess
leachate production
Selective attenuation of contaminants recirculation,
thus further treatment required
Mass/fluid transfer limitation

72
73
 Leachate Recirculation (3)

Methods of Recirculation
Spray irrigation
Working face application
Gravity well/trench
Injection well/trench
Infiltration ponds

74
Typically Proposed Recirculation Leachate
Distribution System

Soil cover

Pump

Waste

Clay/geomembrane
liner system
Leachate collection
system

75
Spray Irrigation
Advantages
Good coverage
Moderate weather restrictions
Subject to evapotranspiration
Easily adjusted for settlement concerns
Disadvantages
Subject to plugging
Sophisticated design and construction
Subject to freezing
Surface water contamination potential

76
Injection Needles
Advantages
Portable
Good coverage
Moderate design, construction requirements
Moderate weather restrictions
Easily adjusted and maintained
Disadvantages
Potential crushing of pipes
Subject to freezing
Surface water contamination potential (thru
pipe leaks), limited use after capping

77
Surface Application
Advantages
Simple design
Most evaporation potential
Good coverage
Low capital investment
Least subject to plugging
Easily accessed for maintenance
Disadvantages
Odor
Weather restrictions (wind, rain)
Health risk
Surface water contamination risk

78
Vertical Wells
Advantages
Minimal weather restrictions
No odor
Simple design
Easily combined with horizontal distribution
lines
Disadvantages
Poor coverage w/o horizontal distribution
Susceptible to differential settlement damage
Subject to plugging
Subject to short circulating of leachate
Difficult to maintain vertical levelness
79
Horizontal Wells/Trenches
Advantages
Fair to good coverage
Minimal weather restrictions
Disadvantages
More sophisticated design and construction
required
Susceptible to differential settlement damage
Virtually impossible repair or maintenance

80
Leachate Recirculation
Refuse Kv < Kh Vertical injection wells better
Not good for well-compacted refuse with a
substantial component of soils or waste of low K.
Clogging may occur when leachate is recirculated
through horizontal pipes beneath the cap.
The leachate should be spread uniformly over the
landfill surface through a network of piping.
Leachate spraying (similar to spray irrigation) has
caused problems of odor and blowing of leachate.
Prewetting of refuse and surface ponding have been
used with mixed success.
81
 Full-Scale Leachate Recirculation
Hydraulic Application Rates
Recirculation method Application rates
Pre-wetting 48 gal/ton or 1000 lb/yd3
Vertical injection wells a. 1 to 2.5 gpm/2.5-inch diameter well
1.7 to 4.1 gpd/ft2 landfill area
b. 20 to 200 gpm/4 ft diameter well
0.12 to 2.3 gpd/ft2 landfill area
Horizontal trenches 25~50 gpd/ft of trench length at 60 to
100 gpm
Surface ponds 0.13~0.19 gal/ft2/day
Spray irrigation 18 gpd/ft2 of landfill area
0.025 to 0.078 gpd/ft2 of landfill area
Source: Reinhart, D.R. and Carson, D. (1993). Experiences with Full-Scale
Application of Landfill Bioreactor Technology, Solid Waste Association of
North America, Preprint, SWANA, Silver Spring, MD. 82