FAQ
This summary of frequently asked questions will be updated periodically. If you have a question, please contact us.
What is the “Leachate Loophole”?
As rainfall percolates through a landfill, it picks up substances from the waste material and becomes a toxic liquid called leachate. Modern landfills must take extensive measures to contain leachate in order to protect surrounding groundwater and streams from the highly concentrated contaminants that leachate contains – including chemicals such as per- and polyfluorinated alkyl substances (PFAS) and 1,4-dioxane.
Yet once this leachate is collected, it is sent to municipal sewage plants, facilities that are not designed or equipped to remove the hazardous substances found in leachate. As a result, the contaminants in leachate pass through sewage plants and into rivers and lakes that serve as drinking water supplies.
We call this set of regulatory gaps the “Leachate Loophole.”
What exactly is leachate?
Leachate is the liquid that forms as rainfall or snowmelt percolates through a landfill. As the water travels through the buried trash, it accumulates pollutants such as heavy metals, pesticides, and synthetic chemicals. Modern landfills are constructed with impermeable barriers that prevent leachate from flowing offsite and polluting nearby ground and surface waters. Some landfills treat leachate onsite, but most of them transport it to a municipal sewage treatment plant for disposal.
How does leachate reach our rivers and lakes?
Most landfills send leachate to municipal sewage plants for disposal. Sewage plants are designed and equipped to treat sewage, not the broad array of harmful substances present in leachate. Consequently, their operating permits focus on a short list of water quality indicators related to human waste. As a result, potentially hazardous or toxic compounds pass through sewage plants into our rivers.
How is leachate transferred from landfills to sewage treatment plants?
Most landfills use tanker trucks to transport leachate. Most leachate is transported by tanker truck, while some is transported via pipes that connect directly to sewer systems.
While the majority of landfills dispose of untreated raw leachate, there are some exceptions. New York State has one leachate pretreatment facility, located in Steuben County. The process targets conventional leachate pollutants such as BOD, pH, total suspended solids, and metals. While the facility may remove some synthetic chemicals, it is not designed for that purpose.
Seneca Meadows landfill uses a reverse osmosis (RO) system to filter some of its leachate. The filtered liquid (called the “permeate”) is transferred to the Seneca Falls STP via a sewer pipe. However, the contaminants removed during the RO process—sometimes referred to as the “residual” or “concentrate”—must still be managed. This leachate pretreatment benefits the Town of Seneca Falls, but it transfers the burden of pollution into other communities.
How does leachate threaten public health?
Actively operating landfills that discharge to sewer plants handle municipal solid waste (i.e., household trash), ash, construction and demolition debris, and industrial waste. Inactive landfills that predate modern record-keeping are also involved, and contain domestic and industrial waste.
Leachate picks up chemicals from the materials in the landfill, producing a liquid that contains a mixture of potentially harmful substances. The list of chemicals detected includes pesticides, toxic metals, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), PFAS, and ingredients of plastics, including phthalates. Many of the detected chemicals are petroleum-based compounds. Some are classified as persistent and bioaccumulative. Many chemicals fit into several of these categories.
In humans, the potential effects (also known as hazards) of the chemicals found in leachate include endocrine system disruption, cancer, interference with reproduction or fetal development, genetic mutations, inflammation of the skin, eyes, or respiratory system, and neurological effects. Many chemicals can cause multiple effects.
It is important to note that while these effects are possible in certain situations, much more information would be needed to assess whether leachate disposal is actually causing these impacts to occur under current conditions. It is also important to note that the risks are not distributed evenly. Black and Hispanic women have higher levels of toxic chemicals in their bodies compared to other groups. The effects of emerging contaminants on pregnant and breastfeeding women are passed along to fetuses and infants, who are especially susceptible to harm from chemical pollution because they are still developing.
Isn’t the state considering new regulations on leachate?
In 2023, the NYS Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) announced that it was considering new regulations to require leachate treatment and disposal onsite at landfills, and that it intended to move forward by formally proposing new regulations that year. DEC did not meet that target.
The formal process that NYS agencies take when developing new rules is called “rulemaking.” The NYS Department of State says that the process “is designed to ensure that the public has opportunity to comment on, and participate in, the development of agency rules.” As part of the rulemaking process, DEC must publish a public notice once it has proposed a draft rule. This public notice formally opens a public comment period of at least 60 days. DEC may alter the proposed rules according to feedback received in these comments.
We are urging DEC to develop these new regulations as soon as possible that include both active and inactive landfills, with a 90-day comment period to provide ample opportunity for public input, and we urge others to let DEC know that this issue is important to them.
What are “emerging contaminants”?
“Emerging contaminants” (also called “contaminants of emerging concern”) are substances that may be harmful to people or ecosystems, but are not regulated. The “emerging contaminants” label encompasses a diverse group of chemicals (plus microplastics and microorganisms) that come from many sources, including prescription drugs, personal care products, pesticides, and industrial processes.
We have recently begun to shift away from using the term “emerging contaminants” for several reasons. First, we feel that the term implies that these pollutants are new, but sometimes they’re not. The term “emerging” really indicates a lack of public (or regulator) knowledge about a certain chemical compound. Second, we feel that the term obscures the fact that these chemical knowledge gaps are systemic. In fact, they were deliberately created by the chemical industry through its involvement in drafting the Toxic Substances Control Act (the U.S. law that created the chemical approval process). Under the TSCA, companies can obtain chemical approval without conducting chemical safety testing. As a result, hazardous chemicals can be manufactured and marketed for decades, and toxicity only becomes apparent through harms experienced by people, wildlife, and ecosystems. Third, we feel that the term implies that regulatory action is forthcoming. In fact, U.S. chemical regulations require extensive documentation of chemical toxicity and exposures. The process of developing new chemical regulations is so lengthy that it is unrealistic to expect many of them to be regulated in our lifetimes. Even then, proposed regulations need to withstand concerted pushback from the chemical industry.
The example of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) demonstrates these reasons. PFAS were invented in the 1930s, and the companies that made them were aware of their potential harms for decades, but they obscured this information. Once PFAS toxicity became public knowledge, companies refused to admit linkages between their chemicals and health impacts. In 2023, nearly a century after PFAS entered circulation, EPA proposed drinking water standards for six compounds, even though the chemical family includes 15,000 substances. The Trump EPA has attempted to roll these standards back.
Instead of using the term “emerging,” we have used terms such as “toxic,” “hazardous,” or “unregulated,” where they apply.
Why are PFAS in landfill leachate a major concern?
PFAS (“forever chemicals”) were found at every landfill that tested for them in the reports reviewed for this study, with 29 different PFAS compounds detected. Leachate treatment was not always effective at removing them, and key compounds like PFOA and PFOS were found at every tested site.
These chemicals are widely used in products like nonstick coatings, stain-resistant fabrics, and firefighting foams, and they do not break down in the environment. Health research has linked exposure to PFAS with serious health impacts, and they are now found in human blood and ecosystems worldwide.
Despite efforts to phase out older PFAS like PFOA and PFOS, they remain widespread in landfill leachate—including from inactive landfills where “legacy” contamination persists. In fact, DEC’s inactive landfill sampling has found PFOA and PFOS in groundwater at 96% of inactive landfills tested, showing how deeply entrenched these chemicals are in the waste system.
What kinds of harmful chemical groups are found in landfill leachate in New York?
Landfill leachate contains many harmful chemical groups, but one of the most concerning is persistent organic pollutants (POPs)—toxic chemicals that break down very slowly, spread widely, and build up in people and wildlife over time. Many of these chemicals were banned decades ago.
In leachate samples from New York, 8 of the 12 POPs originally identified under international agreement were still found, including PCBs, DDT, and dioxins. This shows that even banned “legacy” pollutants are still present in landfill pollution today.
What plastics-related chemicals are found in landfill leachate, and why are they concerning?
Landfill leachate contains many chemicals used to make plastics—47 identified in total, including compounds found in packaging, foam, clothing, and building materials.
Two key examples are benzene and vinyl chloride, both used in plastic production. They are known carcinogens, and there is no safe level of exposure for benzene.
Why does landfill leachate contain so many toxic chemicals, and how is it monitored in New York?
Landfill leachate contains toxic substances because U.S. chemical regulations approve new chemicals for the market without routinely requiring companies to perform basic safety testing. Even if chemicals are regulated post-market, they continue to be present in leachate because toxic substances leach from older material encased in landfills.
In New York, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) requires active landfills to test leachate for a wide range of pollutants—about 250 parameters, including metals and hundreds of synthetic chemicals. But reporting is often incomplete or not publicly accessible.
From a dataset of leachate monitoring reports covering 39 landfills that we compiled for our report on statewide leachate disposal, 187 different chemicals were detected in leachate, including PFAS, pesticides, metals, plastics-related compounds, and other persistent toxic substances. The result is a waste stream with highly variable and only partially documented chemical complexity.
Aren’t drinking water treatment plants testing for dangerous chemicals?
They are testing for some dangerous chemicals, but risks from many commercial and industrial chemicals are poorly documented. Under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), drinking water treatment plants are required to test for approximately 90 drinking water contaminants. Regulations such as drinking water limits are only placed on chemicals after evidence of harm is clear and irrefutable, and the process of developing new regulations is slow. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) lists over 86,000 chemicals that may be used in U.S. commerce. Most are poorly studied because our regulations do not require companies to conduct risk assessments before marketing these substances. When chemicals do receive scrutiny or regulation, manufacturers often respond by replacing them with slightly different formulations, which often carry similar risks, a situation known to toxicologists as “regrettable substitution.”
How does surface water protection under the Clean Water Act relate to landfill leachate discharges?
The Clean Water Act (CWA) protects surface water bodies by classifying them based on use. In New York, Class A waters are designated for drinking and receive the highest protection, while Classes B and C allow greater levels of pollution discharge.
These classifications are applied to individual segments of rivers and lakes, not entire watersheds. Class B and C segments may be located upstream or adjacent to areas classified as drinking water. As a result, pollution can enter lower-classified waters and flow into drinking water supplies.
Our findings show landfill leachate is being discharged both directly into drinking water sources and into connected river systems that feed major drinking water supplies. This includes the Cannonsville Reservoir, serving New York City, and rivers in the Upper Susquehanna Watershed, feeding Baltimore and Philadelphia water supplies.
This exposes two fundamental weaknesses in the CWA framework. First, it allows leachate to be disposed of at sewage treatment plants that discharge into drinking water sources, when it is known that STPs do not treat the contaminants in leachate. Second, the CWA relies on segmentation and dilution to mitigate pollution that is discharged into Class B and C waters, which does not adequately address persistent contaminants that can travel through interconnected water systems and ultimately reach drinking water supplies.
How does landfill leachate end up polluting land as well as water?
Sewage treatment plants produce two outputs: liquid effluent (the “treated” water), and solid sludge. The chemicals in landfill leachate are not destroyed by sewage treatment plants—they are split between the liquid effluent and solid sludge through a process called partitioning. A chemical’s endpoint depends on its individual properties.
In New York, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) reports that most sewage sludge (68%) is ultimately landfilled. Sixteen percent of NYS sewage sludge is placed on farmland, composted for use as a soil amendment, converted to fertilizer products, or used to remediate mining sites. This means that contaminants from leachate are spread to both water and soils. These applications take place inside and outside of NYS, so the precise amount of sludge placed on NYS land is not recorded.
Shouldn’t our environmental laws prevent this?
Our report details the environmental regulations that are designed to protect water quality at each step of the way from landfill to drinking water. These regulations seek to manage, rather than eliminate, pollution. They do this by dividing our environment (which is an integrated system of built infrastructure and natural ecosystems) into silos (solid waste, surface water, drinking water), which leads to gaps such as the Leachate Loophole.
The laws that support our regulations are half a century old, and they are not serving people or ecosystems as they were intended to. Agencies such as the NYS Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) have huge permit review backlogs. Chemical innovation has outpaced and outstripped our regulatory frameworks and agencies, and chemical safety protections are captured by industry. Drinking water regulations are rarely updated, and public notification provisions that were intended to increase consumer awareness and agency have failed to do so.
Are our Chemical Approval Laws the Root Cause of the Problem?
Even as we address the toxic leachate created by material already present in landfills, we must also turn toward the root cause of this pollution: the systems that allow companies to manufacture and market toxic chemicals without routine safety screening or risk assessment. As a result, hazardous substances enter commerce first—and are only later managed as pollution or waste.
This “post-market” approach means harm is often identified only after chemicals are already widespread in products, waste streams, and the environment. Landfill leachate is one downstream consequence of this system, reflecting decades of untested or insufficiently tested chemicals entering the waste stream and persisting in the environment.
What is the “Precautionary Principle,” and how is it related to landfill leachate?
The Precautionary Principle is a principle of pollution management which states that action should be taken to avoid harms to human health and the environment, even amidst scientific uncertainty, when the threats are large. It was endorsed by the United Nations under the Rio Declaration in 1992. This is a proactive approach, similar to the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) system for approving pharmaceuticals.
The Precautionary Principle challenges polluting industries, such as chemicals and fossil fuels, because they are adept at weaponizing scientific uncertainty to avoid regulation. It also contrasts with our existing environmental laws, which act upon “post-market,” “polluter pays” principles. These systems permit commercial and industrial activities to proceed up until impacted communities can demonstrate sufficient proof of harm. Only then are the polluters held responsible, usually by paying for damages or restoration.
The Precautionary Principle moves the burden of proof from the public to the polluter, and prevents polluters from avoiding regulation or responsibility by demanding indisputable proof of causation.
What are the key differences between the Precautionary Principle and Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)?
The key differences have to do with burden of proof, risk management, and the values that guide public health and environmental regulations.
The Precautionary Principle emphasizes prevention in the face of scientific uncertainty. It argues that chemicals should be proven safe before widespread use, especially when they may pose serious or irreversible risks to human health or the environment.
The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), by contrast, operates on a reactive, “post-market,” basis. While TSCA gives the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) authority to review and regulate chemicals, the law does not require manufacturers to complete chemical safety testing prior to approval, and forces EPA to make chemical approval decisions on very short timelines.
TSCA places the burden of proof is on the public to prove chemical hazards. The Precautionary Principle places the burden of proof on companies to prove chemical safety.
Similarly, TSCA manages risks on a reactive basis, while the Precautionary Principle works on a proactive basis. Under TSCA, risk assessment is used to determine chemical regulations after damages are apparent. Highly standardized risk assessment procedures are used to document precisely how, when, and in what amounts a chemical harmed a specific group of people or wildlife. The results are used to develop chemical restrictions. In contrast, the Precautionary Principle manages risks by preventing environmental damage if threats are apparent.
Finally, TSCA places value on commercial gain, while the Precautionary Principle places value on health and well-being. TSCA has often allowed chemicals to enter commerce without comprehensive long-term safety testing. Companies are allowed to withhold many chemical details from EPA under confidential business information claims. Affected groups and regulators must demonstrate substantial evidence of harm before restrictions can be imposed. This approach is widely viewed as ineffective because harmful impacts may not become clear until chemicals are already widespread in products, landfills, groundwater, and human bodies.
Are landfills required to test their leachate? Where can I find the results?
Actively operating landfills are required to test leachate for several dozen chemicals on a quarterly basis. The information is submitted to the NYS Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) to as part of compliance reports. These reports are publicly available, although chemical data is often absent from the posted documents. (You will need to know the DEC Region in which your landfill of interest is located.) Laboratory reports with leachate sample results are usually located in an appendix at the end of the compliance report. You may need to search through the report to determine the sample ID numbers for the leachate samples.
Our report, The Leachate Loophole in New York State, presents chemical monitoring information from a subset of landfills that dispose of leachate at sewage treatment plants in NYS. We compiled testing results for 39 landfills. Out of 301 chemicals tested, 187 were detected in leachate from at least one landfill. The list of chemicals detected includes pesticides, toxic metals, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), PFAS, and ingredients of plastics, including phthalates. Many of the detected chemicals are petroleum-based compounds. Some are classified as persistent and bioaccumulative. Many chemicals that have been banned or phased out of commerce due to ecological and human health risks continue to appear in landfill leachate because they persist in waste deposited decades ago.
What kind of containment is used for the leachate collected by a landfill? How is security of this containment assured?
Actively operating landfills in New York State are required to have two layers of impermeable liners, with some exceptions for alternate systems at some types of landfills. The liners sit underneath gravel layers that hold the leachate collection pipes. Actively operating landfills are required to perform routine maintenance on the leachate collection system and routinely test nearby groundwater and surface water for indicators of leachate leakage.
Some per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) were recently designated as hazardous substances. Does this affect how leachate will be handled?
Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS) have been designated as hazardous substances.
The hazardous substance designation will mainly affect clean-up of contaminated sites under the federal “Superfund” law (Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, CERCLA). EPA has stated that it will focus enforcement on industries, manufacturers, and federal facilities, not local utilities or governments.
The designation will not change how and where PFAS-containing waste will be disposed of, and will not have any impact on landfill leachate.
Where does my drinking water come from?
If you’re a resident of New York State and want to know where your drinking water comes from, you can locate your annual drinking water quality reports by visiting the NYS Department of Health’s “Know Your Water” website.
Why focus on landfill leachate instead of upgrading sewage treatment plants?
Landfill leachate is already regulated by the state and is one of the most concentrated sources of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) and other toxic contaminants entering sewage treatment plants. It also contains high levels of conventional pollutants that make treatment difficult. Because leachate is a concentrated and controllable waste stream, reducing or eliminating raw leachate discharges to sewage plants is considered one of the clearest and most immediate ways to reduce pollution burdens on municipal systems and the environment.
It is more efficient to engineer a treatment system at a landfill, where the leachate stream is controlled and has a relatively well-known chemistry, compared to an STP, where many types of industrial and domestic wastewater are mixed together in continuously fluctuating ratios.
Why is landfill leachate at municipal sewage treatment plants an important target for pollution prevention efforts?
Landfill leachate is a highly concentrated stream of pollution that is already collected and regulated under state landfill programs, making it a clear and actionable point of intervention. Disconnecting raw leachate from sewage treatment plants is a practical and achievable step that would reduce the burden on these systems and help limit the release of a broad range of hazardous pollutants into the environment. Communities whose sewage treatment plants accept landfill leachate can demand that their municipalities stop accepting this waste stream when the resulting discharges threaten rivers and lakes that provide drinking water supplies.
What are the best methods for treating leachate?
It is most efficient to engineer a treatment system at a landfill, where the waste stream is relatively controlled and stable, compared to municipal sewage plants or drinking water treatment plants. Many different types of contaminants may be present in leachate, depending on the nature of the waste in the landfill, the age of the landfill, and other factors. Therefore, the precise treatment strategies will vary by site.
Are foam fractionation and evaporation effective treatments for landfill leachate?
Foam fractionation and evaporation can reduce or concentrate contaminants in landfill leachate, but neither is a complete solution.
Foam fractionation is increasingly used to remove per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) from landfill leachate. The process uses air bubbles to concentrate PFAS into a foam that can be separated from the water.
Evaporation reduces the volume of leachate by turning water into vapor and leaving contaminants behind in concentrated sludge or brine. Like foam fractionation, evaporation generally does not destroy PFAS or other persistent chemicals.
Both technologies are separation methods, rather than destruction technologies. They move contaminants from one medium to another instead of eliminating them entirely.
PFAS compounds may transform or escape to air during these treatment processes. For this reason, it is important to account for all organic fluorine, not just a few selected compounds, when evaluating the efficacy of these treatment methods.
Won’t onsite leachate treatment have its own impacts to the environment?
There is no “silver bullet” solution that will make the problem of leachate disappear, but the impacts can be reduced and controlled. The residue produced by leachate treatment will contain concentrated amounts of the pollutants that have been removed, and will need to be safely contained, disposed of, or destroyed. Leachate treatment processes must be carefully monitored to ensure that air pollution does not occur. The fact that some impacts will remain is not a valid reason to continue the current practice.
Would onsite treatment of landfill leachate solve the problem of contaminated sewage sludge?
Sewage sludge – the solid material that remains after the wastewater treatment process – also contains the types of toxic contaminants that are a concern in landfill leachate, such as per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). Onsite treatment of landfill leachate will reduce the load of contaminants flowing into municipal sewage plants, but not eliminate it because landfills are not the only source of these chemicals. Household wastewater also contains PFAS and other pollutants. However, landfills represent a concentrated and controlled source of toxic contaminants, so addressing the contribution of leachate to sewage plant contaminant loads is an important piece of the puzzle.
What are the economic aspects of the Leachate Loophole?
If a landfill were to discharge leachate directly into a nearby waterbody, the Clean Water Act would require an onsite treatment facility with a State Pollution Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) operating permit. By passing leachate onto sewage treatment plants, landfills avoid the costs and regulatory obligations involved with onsite treatment. In turn, municipal sewage plants earn revenue for accepting leachate. We did not collect cost information for all of the landfill-STP disposal arrangements in the study. According to the data we obtained, representing about one-third of the landfill-STP pairs, the price for leachate disposal ranged from $0.00-0.08 per gallon. In some cases, landfills and sewage plants have reciprocal agreements whereby landfills accept sludge (the solid material that remains after the sewage treatment process), and sewage plants accept leachate.
How much will onsite treatment cost compared to the cost of sending leachate to a wastewater treatment plant?
There are multiple potential technologies for onsite leachate treatment, and each system will have unique properties that require different engineering specifications. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency estimated the capital cost of leachate treatment at $300,000 to $11 million for a municipal solid waste landfill. The cost reflected a single treatment technology, and was highly dependent on the type of technology used. The annual operating costs were estimated to be $0.04-0.09 per gallon of leachate. We did not collect cost data for the full set of facilities in our study. Based on information for about one-third of the leachate disposal arrangements, STPs charged from $0.00-0.08 per gallon of leachate.
Why are inactive landfills being left out of New York’s proposed rulemaking for onsite treatment and disposal of leachate at landfills?
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) is proposing new regulations for onsite treatment and disposal of leachate at landfills, but only for some active landfills. Inactive landfills are categorically excluded, despite their potential to contribute contaminated leachate to municipal systems.
New York State has about 1,900 inactive landfills, the vast majority without leachate controls. Many are legacy sites with documented disposal of hazardous wastes and known groundwater contamination concerns. For the small number of inactive landfills that do collect leachate, the common practice seems to be to send it to sewage treatment plants.
Through the NY Inactive Landfill Initiative (ILI), DEC has tested groundwater for PFOA, PFOS, and 1,4-Dioxane at about 30% of these inactive landfills. PFOA, PFOS, or both have been detected at 96% of the landfills.
The ILI, funded by the Clean Water Infrastructure Act of 2017, gives DEC the responsibility to define and complete remediation where inactive landfills threaten public drinking water supplies. Unfortunately, inactive landfills with confirmed high levels of PFOA and PFOS have still be allowed to dispose of leachate at sewage treatment plants, including those that discharge into drinking water sources.
If inactive landfills are left out of the proposed leachate treatment rule, they will not be able to apply for any grant funds that become available under the new rule.
Won’t opponents use this concern as a reason to continue incinerating waste on the false promise that it is a clean energy source?
That question is a distraction from the real issue at the heart of this problem: we produce too much waste. In our “disposable culture,” we throw away huge amounts of single-use plastic, food (which can and should be composted), and recyclable materials. Closed landfills – those that are not actively receiving garbage – generate much less leachate because they are capped with impermeable covers that prevent water infiltration. If we can reduce our reliance on landfills by creating less trash, we can significantly reduce the problems posed by landfill leachate.
What is Zero Waste Hierarchy?
“Zero Waste: The Conservation of all resources by means of responsible production, consumption, reuse, and recovery of all products, packaging, and materials without burning them and with no discharges to land, water, or air that threaten the environment or human health.” – Zero Waste Hierarchy
The Zero Waste Hierarchy describes a progression of policies and strategies to support the Zero Waste system, from highest and best to lowest use of materials. It is designed to be applicable to all audiences, from policy-makers to industry and the individual. It aims to provide more depth to the internationally recognized 3Rs (Reduce, Reuse, Recycle); to encourage policy, activity and investment at the top of the hierarchy; and to provide a guide for those who wish to develop systems or products that move us closer to Zero Waste. It enhances the Zero Waste definition by providing guidance for planning and a way to evaluate proposed solutions. Users are encouraged to develop policies and actions starting at the top of the hierarchy.
How is this project organized and who is involved?
This project is the work of New York River Watch. The group includes Rebecca Martin (Co-Founder and Executive Director (Lead Steward)), Jen Epstein (Director of Science), Captain John Lipscomb (Technical Advisor), Maureen Cunningham (Technical Advisor), and Good Work Institute (Fiscal Sponsor).
What Can I Do About This Right Now?
- Tell the DEC to Act
Join us in urging the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) to adopt new regulations for the onsite treatment and disposal of landfill leachate as soon as possible, with ample opportunity for meaningful public input. - Stop Leachate Discharges in Your Community
If you live in a community that accepts landfill leachate at your sewage treatment plant that discharges into New York waters, contact your local elected officials. Urge them to stop accepting landfill leachate immediately and to prioritize the protection of public health and waterways.
- Share Information with Others
Help raise awareness by sharing our website, educational materials, and action alerts with friends, family, neighbors, and community organizations. - Use Your Purchasing Power
Many hazardous chemicals found in landfill leachate originate from products used in our homes and workplaces. Whenever possible, avoid purchasing products that contain harmful chemicals and choose safer alternatives. Reducing demand for toxic products helps reduce pollution at its source. - Remove Hazardous Products from Your Home
Take inventory of products you use regularly—including cleaning products, stain-resistant items, nonstick cookware, and other consumer goods—and replace products containing hazardous chemicals with safer options when possible. - Advocate for Safer Purchasing Policies
Encourage your town, city, county, school district, or other local institutions to adopt procurement policies that prioritize safer products and restrict the purchase of products containing hazardous chemicals whenever suitable alternatives are available. - Support Preventive Chemical Policies
While stronger chemical regulation requires action at the federal level, you can support policies based on the precautionary principle—requiring chemicals to be proven safe before widespread use—and encourage elected officials to prioritize pollution prevention over pollution cleanup.