Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Environmental Waste Management topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
County Weighs Vertical ‘EcoVap’ Evaporation Towers and Pond Expansion to Cut Rising Leachate Disposal Costs
Summary
Butler County public works presented two primary options to address rising landfill leachate costs — a $570,000 leachate pond expansion or a modular vertical evaporation system (EcoVap) with a quoted $330,000 price for a 1,000,000-gallon-per-year unit — and commissioners requested vendor references and site visits before deciding.
Butler County public works staff outlined two principal options to reduce sharply rising landfill leachate hauling and disposal costs: expand the existing leachate pond or install modular vertical evaporation towers marketed as EcoVap. Staff presented cost estimates, operational trade-offs and suggested follow-up steps including site visits to existing installations.
Jacob Riley, assistant director of public works, told commissioners the county currently pays about 8 cents per gallon to dispose of leachate and that nearby disposal sites — such as Wichita — have declined to accept the county’s leachate after lab analysis identified PFAS and other volatile organics. Riley said a Burns & McDonnell leachate-pond expansion study estimated construction and quality-assurance oversight at about $570,000. That option would increase pond acreage but, Riley said, would still leave the county with a much smaller footprint than some larger regional landfills.
Riley described an alternative modular technology produced by EcoVap that stacks HDPE panels vertically to increase evaporative surface area. He said EcoVap’s local proposal includes a 10-year license and a 1,000,000-gallon-per-year system priced at about $330,000 (site prep and shipping not included); the vendor also offered a 2,000,000-gallon-per-year option. Riley said EcoVap estimates the vertical stacks can deliver up to “59 times more evaporation” than the county’s existing pond configuration and projects low annual electricity costs (under $300 for the 1,000,000-gallon system) and a small physical footprint (about 0.03 acres).
Riley summarized vendor discussions and field checks: wastewater plants in the region declined raw leachate disposal because of PFAS, 37Water’s incineration solution would require pre-treatment, and other local landfills rely on much larger pond footprints to achieve evaporation. He said EcoVap’s HDPE modules hold up against salts and debris in vendor installations and that the vendor offered to add panels at no cost if the system failed to meet guaranteed annual evaporation volumes.
Commissioners asked detailed questions about licensing, long-term ownership, operating experience in colder climates and site-prep costs. One commissioner asked, “If we buy it, we own it. Why should we have to pay them again in 10 years?” Riley said the 10-year fee was for intellectual property licensing and that the vendor negotiates longer license terms; he offered to request precise licensing terms, long-term maintenance commitments and references for Midwest installations. Riley also proposed arranging a vendor-funded site visit to facilities in Nebraska or Missouri where EcoVap units are operating.
Riley framed the county’s calculus in per-gallon terms: based on the vendor’s 10-year payoff scenario, the 1,000,000-gallon EcoVap system would reduce net disposal cost to about 3 cents per gallon over the financing period versus the current 8 cents per gallon. He said the county had about a six-month window to decide before planned pond expansion work would need to begin.
No formal procurement decision was made; commissioners directed staff to pursue additional vendor information, obtain licensing and maintenance clarifications, and arrange one or more site visits to existing EcoVap installations before returning with a procurement recommendation.
