Introduction to Hazardous waste landfill and Leachate Supportive Data and figures Real Episode due to Leachate Contamination Leachate Generation Factors TSDF - Introduction TSDF – Case Study Literature Review List of Applicable leachate treatment Technologies

1. Leachate Generation from TSDF
and its treatment Options
- Ayushi Sharma
Roll no 123
ME-II, FOTE, MSU
1
Subject : Industrial Water and WasteWater Treatment
Date of Presentation : 7th March’ 2017

2. Outline
 Introduction to Hazardous waste landfill and Leachate
 Supportive Data and figures
 Real Episode due to Leachate Contamination
 Leachate Generation Factors
 TSDF - Introduction
 TSDF – Case Study
 Literature Review
 List of Applicable leachate treatment Technologies
2

3. Introduction
 Landfilling is the most attractive disposal
route.
 Landfilling is not a sustainable option.
 Alternative methods have residues to be
landfilled ultimately.
 Leachate is still a threat (For Ground waters
esp.).
3

4. Supportive Data* (2009)
 No of Hazardous waste Generating Industries : 36,165 nos
 Total Hazardous waste Generated per annum : 62,32,507 Metric Tonne
 Landfillable : 27,28,326 MT (43.78%)
 Incinerable : 4,15,794 MT (6.67%)
 Recyclable : 30,88,387 MT (49.55%)
 No of landfilling sites at present in india : 26 nos **
 Total capacity to handle Landfillable waste : 21,98,068 MT (Deficit : 5,30,258 MT)**
4
*National Inventory of Hazardous Wastes Generating Industries & Hazardous Waste Management in India
** Protocol for Performance Evaluation and Monitoring of the Common Hazardous Waste Treatment Storage and
Disposal Facilities including Common Hazardous Waste Incinerators
- CPCB

5. Gujarat Data (Accounts for 28.76% of HW generation)5
T1 : National Inventory of Hazardous Wastes Generating Industries & Hazardous Waste Management in India
T2 : Protocol for Performance Evaluation and Monitoring of the Common Hazardous Waste Treatment Storage and
Disposal Facilities including Common Hazardous Waste Incinerators
- CPCB

6. The Love Canal Episode
 Love Canal was named after the late 18th century entrepreneur William T. Love who
envisioned a canal connecting the two levels of the Niagara River which is separated by
Niagara Falls. This was to provide hydro electricity to the Niagara Region
 This plan failed due to Economic Collapse. Only a part of the canal was dug.
 The canal was sold in public auction to the city of Niagara Falls which began using the
land as a landfill for chemical waste disposal. 21,000 tones of toxic waste dumped and
covered.
 The expanding city was desperate for land and started construction of residential areas
and gardens.
 During construction of a school, landfill got punctured. Sewers were being constructed
as well.
 Health reports and strange odors were reported the following years.
 Scientists were brought in and were able to determine that the chemicals dumped
seeped into basements and the air and were responsible for the ill health of the
residents
6

7. Leachate Generation* (How?)
 Leachate is Generated when the refuse Moisture content exceeds its field capacity.
 Field Capacity : The maximum moisture that is retained in a porous medium without
producing downward percolation.
 Moisture retention depends on Holding forces of Surface tension and capillary action
 Percolation occurs when the magnitude of the gravitational forces exceeds the holding
forces
7
* Modeling Leachate Generation and Transport in Solid Waste Landfills
M. El-Fadel , A. N. Findikakis & J. O. Leckie

8. Factors affecting Leachate Generation*
 Physical Influences
 Liquid characteristics
 Solid Characteristics
 Physical transformation
 Chemical influences
 Solubility
 Chemical transformations
 Biological Influences
8
* USEPA Document for Management of Hazardous waste Leachate
 Chemical Composition of the
liquid Phase
 Surface area of contact
between liquid and solid
medium
 Contact Time
 pH
 Temperature
 Chemical Composition of Solid
particles
 Adsorption
 Absorption
 Oxidation
 Precipitation
 Microbial population
depends on :
 Composition of waste
 Nutrient availability
 Toxicity
 Oxygen levels
 Temperature
 pH
 Moisture
 Initial population

9. Bharuch Enviro Infrastructure Limited
 3 phases of Secured Landfilling
 2 Incineration plants with WHRB
 3rd Incineration Plant in Commissioning
9

10. Procedure for Waste
Acceptance and
Disposal
 FPA : Finger Print
Analysis
 CA : Comprehensive
Analysis
 SEP : Solar Evaporation
Pond
 MEE : Multiple effect
Evaporator
 CETP : Common Effluent
Treatment Plant
 STP : Sewage treatment
Plant
10
ProtocolforPerformanceEvaluationandMonitoringoftheCommonHazardousWasteTreatmentStorageand
DisposalFacilitiesincludingCommonHazardousWasteIncinerators
-CPCB

11. Waste Acceptance Criteria11
SR. PARAMETERS
ACCETANCE
CRITERIA
IF NOT MATCH WITH
CRITERIA
01 PH 4 - 12 Required for Neutralization
02 Physical state Solid Waste Rejected (If Liquid)
03 PFLT Test PASS Required for Stabilization
04 Odour No Significant odour
Required for Encapsulation in
hume pipe
05 Flammability Non Flammable
Required analysis of
Annealing loss
06 Compatibility Compatible
Required for Encapsulation in
hume pipe
07 LRT < 3 ml/100 gm Required for Stabilization
08 Annealing loss < 20 % Required for Incineration

12. Secured Landfill12

13. Other Secured landfill Photographs13
Bottom-Side liner System HDPE Liner
Jetropha Vegetative Cover Vegetative Cover

14. Stabilization
 BEIL is also caring out
treatments like neutralization
/stabilization after segregating
waste and give required
treatment before disposal to
landfill.
14

15. Incinerator
 Simply Burning to break down into smaller less toxic compounds
15
Combustion Gas ConditioningEnergy Recovery

16. Leachate Treatment @ BEIL
 The Leachate Generated The Scrubber Bleed water and the TDS wastewater from
ETL is sent to Multiple Effect Evaporation System.
 MEE is of 120 KL/day design capacity.
 Condensate has COD~5000 mg/l and TDS~5000 mg/l, which is sent to ETL
 When the MEE is not able to treat all the leachate generated, untreated Leachate is
sent to ETL
16

17. Leachate Analysis Data (01-11-2015)
Parameter Analyzed
value
BOD5 1230 mg/l
COD 19230 mg/l
Chloride 34989 mg/l
Color 300 pt. cobalt
Copper 0.216 mg/l
Iron 2.314 mg/l
Lead 2.758 mg/l
Nickel 0.807 mg/l
Oil and Grease 3.6 mg/l
pH 7.57 mg/l
17
Parameter Analyzed
value
Phenolic comp 9.1 mg/l
Sulfide 78.5 mg/l
Sulfate 2750 mg/l
TDS 59322 mg/l
SS 558 mg/l
Temperature 28 ºC
Total
Chromium
0
Zinc 0.234 mg/l
NH4-N 594 mg/l
Manganese 3.077 mg/l

18. Bharuch Enviro Infrastructure Limited
(Study of Leachate Recycling)
 Pilot Baby Landfill Developed with liner
up to leachate collection.
 Plant Observed for duration of 17-11-
2015 to 01-02-2016
 Leachate generation started after 14
days of waste dumping
18

19. Bharuch Enviro Infrastructure Limited
(Study of Leachate Recycling)
19

20. Bharuch Enviro Infrastructure Limited
(Study of Leachate Recycling) Results
20
0
2
4
6
8
10
pH
0
200000
400000
TDS
(ppm)
0
20000
40000
COD
(ppm)
0
2000
4000
NH3-N
(ppm)
0
10
20
30
40
Leachate Generated

21. 21

22. Processes in comparison
 Coagulation
 Ozonation
 Fenton Treatment
 Activated Sludge process
 Fenton-ASP (CHEM-BIO)
 ASP-Fenton (BIO-CHEM)
22
*Hazardous waste landfill leachate treatment by combined chemical and biological techniques
Eneliis Kattel, Arthur Kivi, Kati Klein, Taavo Tenno, Niina Dulova & Marina Trapido
May, 2015

23. Chemical composition of Leachate23

24. Coagulation (Chemical Treatment)
 Coagulant : Ferric Sulphate
 Jar test performed on 0.6 L sample for Dose 100-1000 mg/l
 1 min fast mixing (400rpm, G=956 s-1)
 30 min slow mixing (40 rpm, G= 30 s-1)
 24 hours sedimentation
24
10% COD reduction and 2% DOC reduction observed at elevated coagulant dose (~1000 mg/l)
Coagulation Process was ineffective pre-treatment technique

25. Ozonation (Chemical Treatment)
 Tests performed on 0.6 L sample in a 2.6L
semi-continuous reactor equipped with foam
catching vessel
 Reaction time : 4 hours
 pH : at initial pH as well as at pH 11
 Ozone produced from compressed air by
Trailigaz LABO LO Ozone generator
delivering gas at 1.0 L/min with conc 30
mg/l.
 Air Stripping trials were carried out in same
treatment conditions
25

26. Fenton/Fenton-based treatment
(Chemical Treatment)
 Batch trials performed in non-buffered solutions.
 With and without pH adjustments to 3
 0.5 L sample taken in 1L cylinder and permanent agitation speed applied for 24
hours.
 Activator FeSO4.7H2O added and after its complete dissolution, Initiator H2O2
added
 H2O2/Fe+2 weight ratio = 5/1
 Oxidation stopped by pH adjustment to 9 by NaOH (10 M)
 Settling time for Ferric hydroxycomplex : 24 hours
26

27. 27
• Highest organic load removal obtained at COD/H2O2/Fe+2 (w/w/w) = 1/2/0.4
• Further increase in reagent dose to COD/H2O2/Fe+2 (w/w/w) = 1/4/0.8 led to improved
organic load removal, but doubled treatment cost → not economically viable
• H2O2 complete utilization observed

28. Biological Treatment
 Sludge used from Municipal waste water treatment plant in the same city which was proposed to
be largely adapted to higher concentrations of Hazardous substances.
 Aerobic biological pre-treatment experiments performed (ASP).
 pH : 7.3 ± 0.2
 Leachate treated with pre-adapted activated sludge
 Tank Volume : 8L
 HRT : 3 days
 F/M : 0.02 gBOD7/gMLSS d.
 Aerobic Biological Post Treatments with pre-adapted activated sludge
 Tank volume : 1 L
 HRT : 1-2 days
 F/M : 0.055-0.06 gBOD7/gMLSS d
 MLSS and COD measured on Daily basis
28

29.  Shows 85% biodegradability in 28 days
 Thus 15% recalcitrant estimated
contributing 120mg/l COD
 Reasonable to employ biological pre-
treatment
29

30. 30

31.  Scientific works in this area indicate the possibility
of using ultrasound for degradation of a wide
range of organic as well as inorganic pollution
 Ultra-sound produces cavitation bubbles in
medium. These bubbles accumulate energy and
volume. Cavitation bubbles collapse and release
accumulated energy depending on the frequency
of ultrasound applied.
 Ultrasound is able to remove pollution by
production of radicals in the cavitation bubbles
 Ultra-sound with 22khz frequency applied for time
up to 180 min
31

32. Methodology
• 300ml sample placed in 500ml beaker and placed in Ultrasound generating equipment
• 8 ml H2O2 (30%) added to the sample
• Degradation performed for 10,20,30,60,180 min
• Temperature rise observed from 18 ºC to 26 ºC
32

33. Chemical composition of leachate33
Young Landfill

34. 34
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
0 50 100 150 200
time vs COD removal
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
0 50 100 150 200
Time vs NH4-N removal
0
10
20
0 50 100 150 200
Time vs CN- Removal
A B

35. Other applications of Ultra-sound
 Pre treatment for biological treatment → Splits relatively inert compound into
smaller fractions.
 Oxidation of ammonia, cyanide and toxic metals.
 Stabilization of sludge
 Sludge dewatering
 Removal of selected metals such as Zn, Cu and Ni
35

36. Applicable Leachate treatment
Technologies
 Filtration
 Flocculation
 Reverse Osmosis
 Solvent Extraction
 Stripping
 Ultrafiltration
 Wet Oxidation
36
* USEPA Document for Management of Hazardous waste Leachate
 Biological Treatment
 Carbon Adsorption
 Chemical oxidation
 Chemical reduction
 Chemical Precipitation
 Density Separation
 Evaporation

37. 37