DOCSLIB.ORG

Final Covers for Mine Tailings

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Final Covers for Mine Tailings Final Covers for Mine Tailings William H Albright, PhD Desert Research Institute Reno NV USA (775) 771-1296 [email protected] Functions of Covers • Physical containment of waste • Control percolation into waste • Control gas movement Ingress (O2) Egress (Rn, CH4, CO2) • CtlControl vec tititor intrusion • Persist for design life of containment facility 2 Categories of Engineered Covers Conventional covers – cover designs where a barrier layer (clay, geomembrane, etc.) having low saturated hydraulic conductivity is the primary impediment to leakage and gas flow. clay covers, composite covers, GCL covers Water balance covers – cover designs where leakage is controlled by balancing the water storage capacity of unsaturated finer-textured soils and the ability of plants and the atmosphere to extract water stored in the soil. Also known as water balance covers, evapotranspiration (ET) covers, store-and-release covers. monolithic covers, capillary barrier covers 3 Conventional Resistive Covers with a Soil Barrier Simple Compacted Geosynthetic Soil Cover Clay Cover Clay Liner (GCL) Cover Soil Soil Soil Waste Waste Compacted Clay GCL Waste 4 Conventional Resistive Covers with a Composite Barrier Clay-Geomembrane GCL-Geomembrane Composite Composite Soil Soil Geomembrane (GM) Compacted Clay Waste Waste GCL 5 Water Balance Covers Mono lithic Cap illary Barrier Barrier Fine Fine Textured Textured Soil Soil Coarse Soil Waste Waste 6 Cover Percolation Gas Cost Type Rate Flux ($/ac) Simple Soil Highest Highest 25, 000 Clay Modest Modest 75,000 GCL Modest Modest 75, 000 Composite Very low Very Low 125,000 Very low - ET Monolithic Modest 50,000 low Capillary Very low - Modest 50,000 Barrier low 7 Design Philosophy Conventional Designs - regulatory engineering, not site specific - methods & materials requirements - no quantitative performance criterion Alternative (Performance-based) Design - determine performance criterion (e.g., percolation ≤ prescriptive cover) - select layering to meet a quantitative performance criterion - analyze to ensure alternative cover meets performance criterion Issues with Prescriptive Regulation 1. With conventional designs typically no performance criteria 2. Alternative designs typically required to show equivalent performance (see 1) 3. Equivalency demonstration is difficult 4. Primary goal (protect HH&E) often neglected 5. Cost (to society) can be higher than necessary 6. An example of the rule of unintended, undesirable consequences 7. Common with indirect regulation An Alternative Regulatory Philosophy - Focus on primary goal (ex. protection of ground water) - Prescriptive design process - Type of waste? - Waste packaging? - CCaelimate? - Depth to groundwater? - Attenuation capacity of unsaturated zone? - Distance to nearest receptor (ex. pumping well)? - Any sensitive environments or species? - Each site will have a different list - Require design engineer to demonstrate compliance with primary goal - RiRequire appropr ititiiate monitoring USEPA’s Alternative • TwentyTwenty--fourfour test covers at Cover Assessment eleven sites in seven Program (ACAP) states. • Ten conventional covers (seven composite and three clay) • Fourteen alternative covers ((geight monolithic barriers and six capillary barriers) • Eight sites with sideside--byby-- side comparison of conventional and alternative covers 11 ACAP Drainage Lysimeters Full-scale construction methods Hundreds of samples and instruments Lysimeters are the only method for direct measurementfdit of drainage Conventional Covers Evaluated by ACAP 16 Compacted Clay Covers Objectives: (1) Construct a soil barrier (compacted clay) with low saturated hydraulic conductivity. (()2) Protect the cla y barrier from damage that may increase hydraulic conductivity 17 Types of Damage -Frost - DiDesicca tion - Differential settlement (normally a problem with municipal solid waste, but not mining wastes , coal ash, etc. ) - Erosion 18 Sensitivity to Frost Damage Freezing of compacted clay barriers causes: - ftifilformation of ice lenses: crac king - formation of desiccation cracks as water moves to freezing front - cracking that causes increases in hydraulic conductivity Protect clay barrier with insulation (synthetic or burial). 19 Sensitivity of Compacted Clay to Desiccation Damage Drying of compacted clay barriers causes desiccation cracks to form, increasing the hydraulic conductivity. Large-scale cracks may form, as in this clay barrier in southern Georgia four years after construction. Dye tracer test in soil barrier cover showing preferential flow path 20 Conventional Clay Cover Performance 800 225 • Soil dried for first time diduring 6--weeweekdk drought ht • Change in response of ppppercolation to precipitation 550 150 events Precipitation Soil water – Quantity No rain storage – “Stair step ” response 300 75 • No evidence that defects in Percolation clay barrier healed when soil m waterm water mmmm water increased 50 0 7/1/00 9/1/00 11/2/00 1/3/01 3/4/02 Data from ACAP field site in Albany GA Field Hydraulic Conductivity Measurements on Clay Barrier 4 Years After Construction Hydraulic Conductivity Test Kfinal/Kas-built (cm/s) As-Built 4.0x10-8 1.0 SDRI 2.0x10-4 5000 TSB - 1 5.2x10-5 1300 TSB - 2 3. 2x10-5 800 TSB - 3 3.1x10-3 77,500 22 Typical Composite Cover Surface 150-1000 mm thick Layer (6 – 40 inches) Drainage Layer Geomembrane Compacted 450-900 mm thick • Geomembrane added directly Clay (18 – 36 inches) on top of clay barrier or GCL • Drainage layer frequently added on top of geomembrane Waste to enhance stability by limiting pore water pressures. 23 1.5 mm LLDPE Textured Geomembrane 24 Geocomposite Drain 25 For covers, chemical compatibility normally is not a concern when selecting geomembrane polymer. Key issues are: - constructibility - durability - cost - availability with texturing All of the cited geomembranes can be welded in the field using wedge or extrusion techniques to obtain welds with higher strength than parent material. LLDPE and HDPE geomembranes are most commonly used for covers 26 Drainage Layers Functions: -Reduce Head on Barrier Layer -Reduce Pore Pressure Build Up Materials: - Coarse-Grained Soil (clean sand, crushed rock) - Geocomposite Drain Design Approach: -SlSelec tdit drain thtthat prov ides accep tblhtable hea d -Adequate hydraulic conductivity -HELP, conservative (over-predicts lateral drainage) 27 -Giroud & Houlihan's Method Conventional Composite Cover Performance • Percolation correlated 1800 120 with Precipitation Lateral flow – Heavy precipitation events 1700 80 – Surface flow Surface flow – Lateral flow on 1600 40 geomembrane m water) mm ( PliPercolation 1500 0 5/1/03 5/16/03 5/31/03 Data from ACAP field site in Cedar Rapids IA Damage to Geomembrane Affects Performance 900 150 ••NoNo cushion between the geomembrane and the Surface flow soil, punctures likely in 800 100 geomembrane Percolation Precipitation • Relatively high rate of percolation 700 50 • Illustrates importance of Lateral flow careflful geomem brane 600 0 installation 8/22/02 10/11/02 11/30/02 1/19/03 3/10/03 Data from ACAP field site in Marina CA Summary: Conventional Designs • Composite designs – Restrict percolation to low (5 (<~5 mm/yr) levels at all locations – Percolation typically coincides with flow on membrane – Require careful construction practice and QA • Clay barrier designs – Performance quickly (<2 yrs) degrades – Percolation probably due to preferential flow through macro- features related to desiccation, freeze/thaw, roots – Damage like ly t o persi st – Probably not suitable for near-surface applications that require low-ppyermeability barrier UW Desiccation Study: Effect on Hydraulic Conductivity of GCLs 10-5 DI Water DI Water + CaCl2 Divalent for 10-6 Tap Water + CaCl 2 monovalent (cm/s) CClCaCl 2 cation exchange 10-7 results in inability onductivity onductivity -8 CC 10 to close desiccation 10-9 cracks, resulting Hydraulic in large increase 10-10 in K. 0123456789 Number of Wettinggy Cycles 31 *Lin, L. and Benson, C. (2000), Effect of Wet-Dry Cycling on Swelling and Hydraulic Conductivity of Geosynthetic Clay Liners, J. of Geotech. and Geoenvironmental Eng., 126(1), 40-49. UW Desiccation Study: Effect on Swelling of GCLs* Divalent for monovalent 40 exchange DI 30 results in loss ) Tap mm CaCl of swe lling 2 20 DI-CaCl capability … 2 Swell (m Swell and Tap-CaCl 10 2 potentially healing 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 capability Number of Wetting Cycles 32 *Lin, L. and Benson, C. (2000), Effect of Wet-Dry Cycling on Swelling and Hydraulic Conductivity of Geosynthetic Clay Liners, J. of Geotech. and Geoenvironmental Eng., 126(1), 40-49. UW Study: GCLs Exhumed from In-Service Caps 10-3 All specimens Site N -4 Site S underwent Ca/Mg 10 ) Site D for Na exchange ss Site O 10-5 Only those with w ctivity (cm/ uu > 120% 10-6 maintained low K 10-7 raulic Cond dd Need to protect Hy -8 GCL from drying 10 and/or cation 10-9 exchange. 0 50 100 150 200 250 In Situ Water Content (%) 33 Differential Settlement • Distortion – ~300 mm V – ~450 mm H • No damage to GM • Large increase in K to soil barrier •GCL – Extensive cation exchange – Retained very low hydraulic conductivity – Humid climate and overlying GM – hydrated quickly, did • This case study has relatively not experience desiccation small distortion • Cover like ly reta ine d funct ion due to intact GM and GCL • Differential settlement an issue with waste containers • Need more research ACAP Data for Conventional Covers Surface Lateral Precipitation ET Percolation RffRunoff Flow Cover Type Site Average Average Average Average Average (mm/yr) (mm) (mm/yr) (mm) (mm) Altamont 379 59.0 4.0 1.5 0.1* Apple Valley 169 6.8 0.0 0.0 Trace Boardman 177 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0* Composite Marina 433 98.7 47.4 23.1 28.3 Polson 350.0 17.7 40.5 0.4 Trace Cedar Rapids 981 54.1 96.2 12.2 2.8* Omaha 731 86. 8 43. 3 606.0 070.7* 7.4 Apple Valley 169 3.4 0.0 0.0 (4.1%) Soil 195.2 Albany 1263 359.4 NA 195.2 Barrier (17. 1%) 51.6 Cedar Rapids 981 79.6 29.5 51.6 (6.0%) *Composite percolation data are scaled from field measurements to account for x10 increase in geomembrane flaws.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • State of Utah DIVISION of WASTE MANAGEMENT GARY R
    Department of Environmental Quality L. Scott Baird Executive Director State of Utah DIVISION OF WASTE MANAGEMENT GARY R. HERBERT AND RADIATION CONTROL Governor Ty L. Howard SPENCER J. COX Director Lieutenant Governor November 5, 2020 Cassady Kristensen Environmental Business Partner Rio Tinto Kennecott 4700 Daybreak Parkway South Jordan, UT 84009 RE: Kennecott Utah Copper Tailings Impoundment Refuse Class IIIb Landfill Permit Dear Ms. Kristensen: The Division of Waste Management and Radiation Control (Division) has completed its review of the application to permit the Rio Tinto Kennecott Utah Copper Tailings Impoundment Refuse Class IIIb Landfill located on the Rio Tinto Kennecott Tailings Impoundment facility in Salt Lake County, Utah. Enclosed with this letter is the approved Permit Number 1905 and applicable attachments from portions of the application. The Permit approval and expiration dates are shown on the permit cover page. Also, the Statement of Basis for this permit (DSHW-2020-014707) is included with the permit. If you have any questions, please call Doug Taylor at (801) 536-0240. Sincerely, Ty L. Howard, Director Division of Waste Management and Radiation Control (Over) DSHW-2020-014711 195 North 1950 West • Salt Lake City, UT Mailing Address: P.O. Box 144880 • Salt Lake City, UT 84114-4880 Telephone (801) 536-0200 • Fax (801) 536-0222 • T.D.D. (801) 536-4284 www.deq.utah.gov Printed on 100% recycled paper TLH/DT/ar Enclosures: Permit (DSHW-2020-004084) Attachment #1 - Landfill Design (DSHW-2020-004510) Attachment #2 – Operation Plan (DSHW- 2020-004512) Attachment #3 – Closure and Post-Closure Plan (DSHW-2020-004514) Statement of Basis (DSHW-2020-014707) c: Gary Edwards, MS, Health Officer, Salt Lake County Health Dept.
    [Show full text]
  • Municipal Solid Waste Landfill Operation and Management Workbook
    MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE LANDFILL OPERATION AND MANAGEMENT WORKBOOK Revised April 2018 Preface In many ways, constructing, operating and maintaining a municipal solid waste landfill is similar to constructing, operating, and maintaining a highway, dam, canal, bridge, or other engineered structure. The most important similarity is that landfills, like other engineered structures, must be constructed and operated in a manner that will provide safe, long-term, and reliable service to the communities they serve. Proper design, construction, operation, monitoring, closure and post-closure care are critical because after disposal the waste can be a threat to human health and the environment for decades to centuries. This workbook is intended to provide municipal landfill operators and managers in Wyoming with the fundamental knowledge and technical background necessary to ensure that landfills are operated efficiently, effectively, and in a manner that is protective of human health and the environment. This workbook contains information regarding basic construction and operation activities that are encountered on a routine basis at most landfills. The basic procedures and fundamental elements of landfill permitting, construction management, monitoring, closure, post-closure care, and financial assurance are also addressed. The workbook includes informative tips and information that landfill operators and managers can use to conserve landfill space, minimize the potential for pollution, reduce operating costs, and comply with applicable rules and regulations. In addition to this workbook, operators and managers need to become familiar with the Wyoming Solid Waste Rules and Regulations applicable to municipal solid waste. The DEQ also provides numerous guidelines that may help understand regulatory requirements in more detail.
    [Show full text]
  • Five Facts About Incineration Five Facts About Incineration
    Five facts about incineration Five facts about incineration Across the globe, cities are looking for ways to improve their municipal solid waste systems. In the search for services that are affordable, green and easy to implement, many cities are encouraged to turn to waste-to-energy (WtE) technologies, such as incineration.1 But, as found in WIEGO’s Technical Brief 11 (Waste Incineration and Informal Livelihoods: A Technical Guide on Waste-to-Energy Initiatives by Jeroen IJgosse), incineration is far from the perfect solution and, particularly in the Global South, can be less cost-effective, more complicated and can negatively impact the environment and informal waste workers’ livelihoods. Below, we have collected the top five issues highlighted in the study that show why this technology is a risky choice: 1. Incineration costs more than recycling. How incineration may be promoted: Incineration is a good economic decision because it reduces the costs associated with landfill operations while also creating energy that can be used by the community. The reality: • In 2016, the World Energy Council reported that, “energy generation from waste is a costly option, in comparison with other established power generation sources.” • Setting up an incineration project requires steep investment costs from the municipality. • For incineration projects to remain financially stable long-term, high fees are required, which place a burden on municipal finances and lead to sharp increases in user fees. • If incinerators are not able to collect enough burnable waste, they will burn other fuels (gas) instead. Contract obligations can force a municipality to make up the difference if an incinerator doesn’t burn enough to create the needed amount of energy.
    [Show full text]
  • Dust Emissions from Landfill Due to Deposition of Industrial Waste: a Case Study in Malmberget Mine, Sweden
    Dust Emissions from Landfill due to Deposition of Industrial Waste: A Case Study in Malmberget Mine, Sweden Qi Jia, Yi Huang, Nadhir Al-Ansari and Sven Knutsson Civil, Mining and Nature Resources Engineering of Luleå University of Technology Abstract A great amount of industrial wastes are produced in Sweden every year. In 2008 there were 97.9 million tons of wasted generated, among which 93 million tons industrial waste were produced. 64.1% of industrial wastes were deposited in the landfill sites. Dust generation is one of the most important problems associated with industrial waste and landfills. The particulate dust emissions come from the industrial waste may contain heavy metal and produce environmental problems and potential health risks. Active and passive samplers, deposition pans are common equipment to collect dust samples. Real-time monitors use laser diffraction to recording continuous dust concentration. Dust emission from Malmberget mine in Sweden was analyzed as a case study. Dust was collected by NILU deposit gauge from 26 stations. Generally speaking the amount of dust fallout was decreasing with time because of implemented dust control methods. During the period August 2009 to August 2010, among all the measuring stations through the year, the maximum and the minimum value were 1284 g/100m2/30d and 9 g/100m2/30d. Two sources of dust generation were identified. The first was located close to the open pit, and the second near the current mining industrial center. The dust generation due to road construction was calculated. On the other hand dust generation was also closely related to weather conditions.
    [Show full text]
  • Health Effects of Residence Near Hazardous Waste Landfill Sites: a Review of Epidemiologic Literature
    Health Effects of Residence Near Hazardous Waste Landfill Sites: A Review of Epidemiologic Literature Martine Vrijheid Environmental Epidemiology Unit, Department of Public Health and Policy, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom This review evaluates current epidemiologic literature on health effects in relation to residence solvents, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), near landfill sites. Increases in risk of adverse health effects (low birth weight, birth defects, certain and heavy metals, have shown adverse effects types of cancers) have been reported near individual landfill sites and in some multisite studies, on human health or in animal experiments. and although biases and confounding factors cannot be excluded as explanations for these A discussion of findings from either epi­ findings, they may indicate real risks associated with residence near certain landfill sites. A general demiologic or toxicologic research on health weakness in the reviewed studies is the lack of direct exposure measurement. An increased effects related to specific chemicals is beyond prevalence of self-reported health symptoms such as fatigue, sleepiness, and headaches among the scope of this review. residents near waste sites has consistently been reported in more than 10 of the reviewed papers. It is difficult to conclude whether these symptoms are an effect of direct toxicologic action of Epidemiologic Studies on chemicals present in waste sites, an effect of stress and fears related to the waste site, or an Health Effects of Landfill Sites risks to effect of reporting bias. Although a substantial number of studies have been conducted, The majority of studies evaluating possible is insufficient exposure information and effects health from landfill sites are hard to quantify.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix a Basics of Landfill
    APPENDIX A BASICS OF LANDFILL GAS Basics of Landfill Gas (Methane, Carbon Dioxide, Hydrogen Sulfide and Sulfides) Landfill gas is produced through bacterial decomposition, volatilization and chemical reactions. Most landfill gas is produced by bacterial decomposition that occurs when organic waste solids, food (i.e. meats, vegetables), garden waste (i.e. leaf and yardwaste), wood and paper products, are broken down by bacteria naturally present in the waste and in soils. Volatilization generates landfill gas when certain wastes change from a liquid or solid into a vapor. Chemical reactions occur when different waste materials are mixed together during disposal operations. Additionally, moisture plays a large roll in the speed of decomposition. Generally, the more moisture, the more landfill gas is generated, both during the aerobic and anaerobic conditions. Landfill Gas Production and Composition: In general, during anaerobic conditions, the composition of landfill gas is approximately 50 percent methane and 50 percent carbon dioxide with trace amounts (<1 percent) of nitrogen, oxygen, hydrogen sulfide, hydrogen, and nonmethane organic compounds (NMOCs). The more organic waste and moisture present in a landfill, the more landfill gas is produced by the bacteria during decomposition. The more chemicals disposed in a landfill, the more likely volatile organic compounds and other gasses will be produced. The Four Phases of Bacterial Decomposition: “Bacteria decompose landfill waste in four phases. The composition of the gas produced changes with each of the four phases of decomposition. Landfills often accept waste over a 20-to 30-year period, so waste in a landfill may be undergoing several phases of decomposition at once.
    [Show full text]
  • Introduction to Municipal Solid Waste Disposal Facility Criteria C R Training Module Training
    Solid Waste and Emergency Response (5305W) EPA530-K-05-015 A R Introduction to Municipal Solid Waste Disposal Facility Criteria C R Training Module Training United States Environmental Protection September 2005 Agency SUBTITLE D: MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL FACILITY CRITERIA CONTENTS 1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 1 2. Regulatory Summary .............................................................................................................. 2 2.1 Subpart A: General Requirements ................................................................................... 3 2.2 Subpart B: Location Restrictions ..................................................................................... 6 2.3 Subpart C: Operating Criteria .......................................................................................... 8 2.4 Subpart D: Design Criteria ..............................................................................................12 2.5 Subpart E: Groundwater Monitoring and Corrective Action ..........................................12 2.6 Subpart F: Closure and Post-Closure Care ......................................................................17 2.7 Subpart G: Financial Assurance Criteria .........................................................................19 Municipal Solid Waste Disposal Facility Criteria - 1 1. INTRODUCTION This module provides a summary of the regulatory criteria for municipal solid waste
    [Show full text]
  • Inert Landfill Operations Inert Waste Definition
    Inert Landfill Operations Inert Waste Definition North Dakota Administrative Code 33-20-01.1-03 (26) defines inert waste as: “Inert waste” means nonputrescible solid waste which will not generally contaminate water or form a contaminated leachate. Inert waste does not serve as food for vectors. Inert waste includes, but is not limited to: construction and demolition material such as metal, wood, bricks, masonry and cement concrete; asphalt concrete; metal; tree branches; bottom ash from coal fired boilers; and waste coal fines from air pollution control equipment. Acceptable Wastes for Disposal? Yes (although concrete could No (aerosol cans, chemical be recycled) containers and electronics are not inert) Acceptable Wastes for Disposal? No (household waste could attract No (could attract vectors, vectors, create leachate putrescible) and/or be putrescible) Waste Collected for Non-Disposal Management • Major Appliances: – Freezers, Refrigerators, Ovens, Water Heaters, etc. – May require Freon removal with licensed equipment or removal of residual liquids – Aka “White Goods” • Scrap Metal Waste Collected for Non-Disposal Management • Grass and Leaves: – Manage by Composting – Separate from Burn Pile and Disposal Area – Soil Amendment for Cover or for Contractor/Resident Landscaping Projects – Run-off Management Waste Collected for Non-Disposal Management • Electronics*: No! – Challenging waste to recycle: • Storage • Outlet • May Contain Heavy Metals and Other Toxic Substances – Aka “E-Waste” or “Brown Goods” – Recycling Facilities and MSW
    [Show full text]
  • How a Landfill Works Presented By: American Environmental Landfill, Inc
    How a Landfill Works Presented by: American Environmental Landfill, Inc. 1420 W. 35th Street, Suite B Tulsa, OK 74107 Phone: 918-245-7786 Fax: 918-245-7774 How a Landfill Works So you have just finished your meal at a fast food restaurant and you throw your uneaten food, food wrappers, drink cup, utensils and napkins into the trash can. Odds are you don’t think about that waste again. On trash pickup day in your neighborhood, you push your can out to the curb, and workers dump the contents into a big truck and haul it away. You don’t have to think about that waste again, either. But maybe you have wondered, as you watch the trash truck pull away, just where that garbage ends up. Americans generate trash at an astonishing rate of four to seven pounds per day per person, which translates to at least 600,000 tons per day or at least 210 million tons per year! This is almost twice as much trash per person as most other major countries. What happens to this trash? Some gets recycled or recovered and some is burned, but the majority is buried in landfills. In this overview of how a landfill works, we will examine how a landfill is made, what happens to the trash in landfills, what risks are associated with a landfill and how these risks are solved. How is Trash Disposed of? The trash production in the United States has almost tripled since 1960 (Figure 2). This trash is handled in various ways. About 27 % of the trash is recycled or composted, 16% is burned and 57% is buried in landfills.
    [Show full text]
  • Landfills Are Bad, but Incinerators (With Ash Landfilling) Are Worse
    Landfills are bad, but incinerators (with ash landfilling) are worse Incinerators do not avoid landfills. For every 100 tons of trash burned, 30 tons become toxic ash that goes to landfills. The other 70 tons don’t turn into energy, but become air pollution. In terms of air pollution, and groundwater impacts, burning waste then burying ash is far worse than direct landfilling, and both are worse than a Zero Waste approach.1 A Zero Waste approach means zero incineration and at least 90% reduction from landfilling, with residuals biologically stabilized prior to landfilling, to minimize odors, leachate, gas formation and toxic migration. The most recent data comparing incinerators to landfills is from air emissions data provided by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP). For 2017, this includes data on all six trash incinerators in PA and 17 landfills in DEP’s southeast and southcentral regions. Incinerators are __ Pollutant (all data in tons) Incinerators Landfills times as polluting Greenhouse Gases (CO2e) 482,770 268,763 1.8 Total Health Damaging Pollution 1,975 1,236 1.6 Carbon Monoxide (CO) 119 22 5 Hydrochloric Acid (HCl) 17 1 21 Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) 625 6 105 Particulate Matter, Condensable 25 1 17 Particulate Matter (PM10) 26 17 1.6 Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) 17 4 5 Sulfur Oxides (SOx) 55 3 19 Total Suspended Particulate (TSP) 2,178 2,486 0.88 Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) 3 9 0.34 This shows that incineration is 80% worse than landfills for the climate, and that other pollutants that directly harm human health are 60% worse from incineration.
    [Show full text]
  • Long Range Solid Waste Management Plan Environmental Assessment
    Long Range Solid Waste Management Plan Environmental Assessment Appendix H – Design and Operations Report August 2007 Long Range Solid Waste Management Plan Environmental Assessment Appendix H – Design and Operations Report - August 2007 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1.0 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................. H-1 1.1 Purpose and Scope ............................................................................... H-1 1.2 Regulatory Requirements ...................................................................... H-1 1.3 Background.......................................................................................... H-10 1.4 Description of the Undertaking............................................................. H-11 2.0 LANDFILL EXPANSION SITE DESCRIPTION.............................................. H-13 2.1 Site Location ........................................................................................ H-13 2.2 Site Boundaries ................................................................................... H-13 2.3 Land Use ............................................................................................. H-13 2.4 Topography.......................................................................................... H-13 2.5 Hydrology............................................................................................. H-14 2.6 Hydrogeology....................................................................................... H-14 2.7 Archaeology........................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Groundwater Pollution by Municipal Solid Waste Landfill Leachate: a Case Study of Okhla Landfill Delhi
    Groundwater Pollution by Municipal Solid Waste Landfill Leachate: A Case Study of Okhla Landfill Delhi Vijaya Singh* and Atul. K. Mittal** * Environmental Engineering Laboratory, Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Delhi, New Delhi – 110016, India (E-mail: [email protected]) **Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Delhi, New Delhi – 110016, India (E-mail: [email protected]) The large number of municipal solid waste (MSW) landfills and the many hazardous materials which they contain pose a serious threat to both surrounding environment and human populations. Once waste is deposited at the landfill, pollution can arise from the percolation of leachate to the porous ground surface. Contamination of groundwater by such leachate renders it and the associated aquifer unreliable for domestic water supply and other uses. This study deals with Okhla municipal landfill, Delhi. The leachate samples were subjected to physicochemical and toxicological studies with a view to determining the degree of pollution and contamination in this wastewater, which varied substantially with time of sampling. All parameters examined showed markedly higher values indicating significant risk to public health and environment. The study recommends that immediate steps be taken to stop further contamination of the groundwater. Keywords: municipal landfills, leachate, groundwater contamination Introduction One of the oldest and most common methods of municipal waste disposal is landfilling. This is most likely to remain the ultimate fate of solid waste since it appears to be one of the cheapest ways (Britz et al., 1990). Once disposed of in landfill, solid waste undergoes various physico-chemical and biological changes.
    [Show full text]