Landfill gas system rules are changing – SWANAPALOOZA resources help navigate the maze!
June 16, 2020
On March 26, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) finalized amendments to the 2003 National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills. The NESHAP rules affect air permits and landfill gas system operating requirements for most active landfills. Read the Technical Bulletin here.
Some permittees welcome the revised wellhead operational standards, but other changes including additional monitoring requirements for wells operating at higher temperatures, and correction and clarification of Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction (SSM) requirements are creating confusion. Landfill owners have an 18-month phase-in period before full compliance with the NESHAP requirements, so now is the time to unravel the confusing language between NESHAP rules and existing New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) rules (Subpart WWW and Subpart XXX).
SCS Engineers and SWANA are presenting a series of webinars and resources to help landfill owners and operators untangle the confusing permit phraseologies and implications created when state agencies with air permitting authority incorporate the NESHAP requirements into Title V operating permit renewals and construction permits.
Tune in for advice on Wednesday, June 24, 3:40 PM – 4:15 PM:
SWANAPalooza 2020 Virtual Conference — Navigating the Maze of Federal Air Quality Regulations for Landfills with Pat Sullivan. Pat and other presenters will discuss the EPA’s landfill regulations, including NSPS, NESHAP, and Emission Guidelines.
Tune in earlier for other key presentations including:
Treatment advice targeting emerging contaminants,
Solid waste planning for an uncertain future,
Using remote monitoring and control to automate regulatory LFG, liquids, and SSM reporting among others,
Free on-demand presentations for technical, budgetary, and financial needs; private chats; resource materials; and even entertainment at the SCS Engineers virtual booth.
We look forward to seeing you at SWANAPalooza 2020!
Posted by Diane Samuels at 6:00 am
Tag Archives: liquids management
Emerging Design Concepts to Facilitate Flow of Liquids on Landfills
May 11, 2020
The industry is designing and building more substantive drainage features and larger collection systems from the bottom up, that maintain their integrity and increase performance over time, thus avoiding more costly problems in the future.
Waste360 spoke with three environmental engineers about what landfill operators should know about liquids’ behavior and what emerging design concepts help facilitate flow and circumvent problems such as elevated temperature landfills, seeps, and keep gas flowing.
The engineers cover adopting best practices and emerging design concepts to facilitate flow. They cover topics such as directing flow vertically to facilitate movement to the bottom of the landfill, drainage material, slope to the sump percentages, vertical stone columns, installing these systems at the bottom before cells are constructed, and increasing cell height to prevent the formation of perched zones.
Ali Khatami, one of the engineers interviewed, has developed standards for building tiered vertical gas wells that extend from the bottom all the way up. He frequently blogs about landfill design strategies that his clients are using with success. His blog is called SCS Advice from the Field. Dr. Khatami developed the concept of leachate toe drain systems to address problems tied to seeps below the final cover geomembrane. These seeps ultimately occur in one of two scenarios, each depending on how the cover is secured.
Landfill Gas Header: Location and BenefitsBy continuing to design gas header construction on landfill slopes, all of the components end up on the landfill slope as well. You can imagine what type of complications the landfill operator will face since all of these components are in areas vulnerable to erosion, settlement, future filling, or future construction. Additionally, any maintenance requiring digging and re-piping necessitates placing equipment on the landfill slope and disturbing the landfill slope surface for an extended period.
AIRSPACE, the Landfill Operators’ Golden EggAirspace is a golden egg, the equivalent to cash that a waste operating company will have overtime in its account. With each ton or cubic yard of waste received at the landfill, the non-monetary asset of airspace converts positively to the bottom line of the …
Gas Removal from Leachate Collection Pipe and Leachate SumpKeeping gas pressure low in and around the leachate collection pipe promotes the free flow of leachate through the geocomposite or granular medium drainage layer to the leachate collection pipe and improves leachate removal from the disposal cell. Using gas removal piping at leachate sumps is highly recommended for warm or elevated temperature landfills where efficient leachate removal from the leachate collection system is another means for controlling landfill temperatures.
Leachate Force Main Casing Pipe and Monitoring for LeaksLandfill operators may add a casing pipe to their leachate force main for additional environmental protection. Consequently, the leachate force main is entirely located inside a casing pipe where the leachate force main is below ground. In the event of a leak from the leachate force main, liquids stay inside the casing pipe preventing leakage …
Pressure Release System Near Bottom of LandfillsPressure Release System Near Bottom of Landfills – Essential Component for Proper Functioning of the Landfill Drainage Layer. Landfill designers are generally diligent in performing extensive leachate head analysis for the design of the geocomposite drainage layer above the bottom geomembrane barrier layer. They perform HELP model analyses considering numerous scenarios to satisfy all requirements …
Landfill Leachate Removal Pumps – Submersible vs. Self-Priming PumpsSelf-priming pumps can provide excellent performance in the design of a landfill leachate removal system. Landfill owners and operators prefer them to help control construction and maintenance costs too. A typical system for removing leachate from landfill disposal cells is to have a collection point (sump) inside …
Posted by Diane Samuels at 6:00 am
Tag Archives: liquids management
Treating Ammonia in Landfill Leachate
May 4, 2020
In this Waste Today article, Sam Cooke discusses the factors, treatment options, analytical methods, and identifying PFAS sources to most effectively reduce the concentrations of ammonia and PFAS in landfill leachate.
Reducing these concentrations help meet discharge permit requirements for direct discharge of treated leachate to surface waters and to meet publicly owned treatment works (POTW) discharge permit standards.
Sam points out that accomplishing ammonia and PFAS reduction with established wastewater treatment technologies works, but the right treatment depends on each site’s specific parameters. He suggests conducting bench-scale and pilot-scale testing for any feasible nitrogen removal or treatment system. Testing the wastewater helps to identify any changes in the concentration of nitrogen compounds. Thus, necessary changes to the treatment processes, such as additional aeration or chemical additions are easier to identify and less costly to implement.
About the Author: Mr. Cooke, PE, CEM, MBA, is a Vice President and our expert on Industrial Waste Pretreatment. He has nearly three decades of professional and project management experience in engineering with a concentration in environmental and energy engineering. Mr. Cooke works within SCS’s Liquids Management initiative to provide services to our clients nationwide.
Pilot-test New Technology for Cost-effective Removal and Destruction of PFAS in Landfill Leachate
April 20, 2020
Pilot-Testing a Novel “Concentrate-&-Destroy” Technology for ‘Green’ and Cost-Effective Destruction of PFAS in Landfill Leachate
One of the recent recipients of EPA’s latest round of small business research grants is investigating a novel technology for treating PFAS in leachate. This project could fill a key technology gap for cost-effectively treating PFAS in landfill leachate. The technology would provide landfill field engineers and decision-makers with a cost-effective solution and mitigate the health impacts as the relevant regulations are rapidly evolving.
The technology is based on an innovative adsorptive photocatalyst (Fe/TNTs@AC) synthesized by modifying low-cost activated carbon (AC) with a cutting-edge photocatalyst, iron-doped titanate nanotubes (Fe/TNTs). The technology works by first concentrating PFAS in water onto Fe/TNTs@AC, and then completely degrading PFAS under UV or solar light. Bench-scale studies indicated that Fe/TNTs@AC can remove >99% of PFOA or PFOS from water via adsorption within 1 hour and degrade nearly 100% of the adsorbed PFAS within 4 hours of UV irradiation. Complete destruction of PFOA also regenerates the material, allowing for repeated uses.
While conventional AC or resins do not degrade PFAS, and while PFAS-saturated AC or resins are hardly regenerable, PFAS on Fe/TNTs@AC are amenable to efficient photocatalytic degradation, which not only destroys PFAS, but regenerates the material. While direct photochemical treatment of PFAS-laden water is often cost-inhibitive, the new technology employs photocatalytic treatment only for spent Fe/TNTs@AC, which is only a fraction of the raw water volume, and thus consumes much less energy.
Phase I commenced on March 1 and runs through August 31, 2020
International Production & Processing Expo 2020 – IPPE – Atlanta, GA
January 28, 2020
The International Production & Processing Expo is the world’s largest annual poultry, meat, and feed industry event of its kind. A wide range of international decision-makers attend this annual event to network and become informed on the latest technological developments, environmental solutions, renewable energy from feedstocks, and other issues within the industry.
SCS Engineers staff professionals will be attending the event and are available to discuss wastewater treatment, risk management plans, process safety management planning, emerging contaminants such as PFAS, and other environmental challenges facing industry participants.
Please contact SCS ahead of the conference if you would like to discuss strategies for meeting these environmental challenges during the conference. We will arrange to have the appropriate professionals available to speak with you.
The management of environmental issues is a priority for the meat and poultry industry, and this conference is designed to provide processors with the latest information to effect change and meet regulatory requirements within their operations. Increased scrutiny from both the public and government has paved the way for advanced technologies and innovations that help processors improve environmental factors, which will be discussed by technical experts and industry leaders.
This IPPE conference covers critical topics including EPS enforcement, water use, and conservation, wastewater management, Form R Reporting, Process Safety Management (PSM), recycling, PFAS and more. Come learn how industry leaders are dealing with key environmental issues through the sharing of best practices and gain practical information to help your business. The conference includes a networking reception on Monday evening, as well as an awards luncheon on Tuesday that will recognize the winners of the NAMI Environmental Achievement and Environmental Recognition awards.
Per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) are receiving increasing attention from regulators and the media. Within this large group of compounds, much of the focus has been on two long-chain compounds that are non-biodegradable in the environment: PFOS (perfluorooctane sulfonate) and PFOA (perfluorooctanoic acid). Long detected in most people’s bodies, research now shows how “forever chemicals” like PFAS accumulate and can take years to leave. They persist even when excreted through urine. Scientists have even tracked them in biosolids and leafy greens like kale. Recent studies have linked widely used PFAS, including the varieties called PFOA and PFOS, to reduced immune response and cancer. PFAS have been used in coatings for textiles, paper products, cookware, to create some firefighting foams and in many other applications.
Testing of large public water systems across the country in 2013 through 2015 found PFAS detected in approximately 4 percent of the water systems, with concentrations above the USEPA drinking water health advisory level (70 parts per trillion) in approximately 1 percent (from ITRC Fact Sheet.) Sources of higher concentrations have included industrial sites and locations were aqueous film-forming foam (AFFF) containing PFAS has been repeatedly used for fire fighting or training.
Source identification is more difficult for more widespread low-level PFAS levels. For example, in Madison, Wisconsin, PFAS have been detected in 14 of 23 municipal water supply wells, but the detected concentrations were below the USEPA’s health advisory levels for PFOA and PFOS. A study of potential PFAS sources near two of the Madison wells identified factories, fire stations, landfills, and sludge from sewage treatment plants as possible sources, but did not identify a specific source.
With the EPA positioned to take serious action on PFAS in late 2019 and 2020, regulators in many states have already started to implement their own measures, while state and federal courts are beginning to address legal issues surrounding this emerging contaminant. State actions have resulted in a variety of state groundwater standards for specific PFAS compounds, including some that are significantly lower than the USEPA advisory levels. These changes mean new potential liabilities and consequences for organizations that manufacture, use, or sell PFAS or PFAS-containing products, and also for the current owners of properties affected by historic PFAS use.
Questions for manufacturers, property owners, and property purchasers include:
Should we test for PFAS?
If so, where and how?
To what standards should we compare our results?
What will we do if we find PFAS?
If remediation is required, a number of established options to remove PFAS from contaminated soil and groundwater are available, including activated carbon, ion exchange or high-pressure membrane systems. On-site treatment options, including the management of reject streams where applicable, are also available.
Do You Need Help?
Need assistance with PFAS or have an idea that you would like to discuss? Contact for more information.
Use these resources to explore more about PFAS each is linked to helpful articles and information.
SCS Engineers Welcomes Mark Pearson, P.E. to Our Liquids Management Team
September 30, 2019
SCS Engineers welcomes Mark Pearson, P.E, to the firm’s environmental engineering practice. As a Project Director, he and his team will provide water and wastewater engineering and consulting to public and private entities in the region and the U.S. from SCS’s Overland Park office.
Mark brings decades of expertise in environmental engineering, with an emphasis on wastewater design for water treatment plants, wells, pumping stations, and including sewers and waterlines. His experience includes project management through facility planning, design, and construction phases; a good fit for SCS’s comprehensive solutions.
A Professional Engineer licensed in three states, he supports clients with the design, construction, and implementation of environmental treatment systems for water and wastewater plants and post-industrial use, reuse, and the disposal of liquids. Mark helps support industries and landfills facing increasing regulatory policies, higher standards required by water treatment plants, and the rising costs associated with protecting water supplies.
Mark has worked on a wide range of projects around the world and in the United States. He is a certified Envision Sustainability Professional (ENV SP) and a member of the National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying (NCEES). He earned his bachelor’s degree in civil engineering from the Missouri University of Science and Technology, and his master’s degree in environmental engineering from California State University-Long Beach.
“Mark’s expertise and knowledge enhance SCS’s ability to provide sustainable process treatment design and wastewater solutions to industrial and landfill clients who are responsible for leachate and liquids management, which is a significant operational expense for them,” stated Nathan Hamm, a Vice President of SCS Engineers and Central region lead in the Liquids Management program.
Posted by Diane Samuels at 6:03 am
Tag Archives: liquids management
EREF Summit on PFAS in Leachate – August 14 – 15
August 2, 2019
This EREF Summit will bring together practicing engineers, academics, industry professionals, government personnel and policymakers to facilitate discussion and provide various perspectives on the management, issues, and policies related to PFAS.
Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) are a group of compounds that are man-made and are commonly used in industrial processes and consumer products such as food packaging, fire-fighting foams, metal plating, outdoor gear, popcorn bags, food wrappers, facial moisturizers, mattresses, carpeting, and cookware. Despite the widespread use of PFAS in everyday products, there are still significant knowledge gaps associated with the management of these compounds.
Determining if Deep Well Injection is a Viable Technology for Your Facility
June 17, 2019
Understanding the entire range of wastewater management and disposal alternatives can be a daunting task, particularly as increasingly stringent surface water discharge standards take effect or as zero discharge facilities find the management of their waste liquid needs changing over time. Former solutions are no longer options or may be too costly. One alternative that is rapidly gaining traction is deep injection wells.
Deep well injection is a viable leachate management option in many parts of the United States, yet it is often screened out as a possible alternative due to a lack of understanding of the technology or gross misconceptions about its acceptance or applicability. The purpose of the Monte Markley’s paper The Basics of Deep Well Injection as a Leachate Disposal Option is to present the basic technical, economic and regulatory considerations of deep well injection as a technology a facility should evaluate when considering the applicability of geologic sequestration of leachate.
Technical criteria discussed are potential disposal volumes, geologic suitability, chemical compatibility, pre-treatment requirements, and leachate chemistry. The economic considerations are evaluated based on the technical criteria noted above, management of public perception/relations, current leachate management expenditures, the service life of the asset and risk to develop accurate capital, O&M costs, and return on investment. Regulatory considerations include the role of state vs. federal primacy for each state, the general stance of regulatory acceptance in specific areas of the United States, and a discussion of the permitting process and typical reporting requirements.
These key considerations are then integrated into an overall suitability evaluation that an owner can utilize to accurately determine if deep well injection is a viable option and, if so, how to educate other stakeholders and manage the process of implementation as a project moves forward.
Revisions to Criteria for MSW Landfills to Address Advances In Liquids Management – ANPRM
June 4, 2019
Comments were submitted to the EPA from NWRA/ SWANA regarding the EPA’s Advance Notice of Public Rule Making (ANPRM) for revisions to Subtitle D, and in particular potential revisions regarding the bulk liquids addition. Subtitle D prohibits bulk liquids additions with the exception of leachate recirculation, and the RD&D permit process allows bulk liquids. Bob Gardner of SCS Engineers was involved in the development of the joint NWRA/SWANA comment letter.
EPA has indicated that they are considering adding a “wet landfill” definition to Subtitle D; however, the Industry strongly advised against doing so. The letter addresses this issue and the reasons for recommending against a separate “wet landfill” definition.