International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET) Volume 9, Issue 7, July 2018, pp. 1896–1902, Article ID: IJCIET_09_07_200 Available online at http://iaeme.com/Home/issue/IJCIET?Volume=9&Issue=7 ISSN Print: 0976-6308 and ISSN Online: 0976-6316

© IAEME Publication Scopus Indexed

COMPARISON OF GROUNDWATER QUALITY STATUS AT ACTIVE AND INACTIVE LANDFILL IN ,

M.H. Ahmad Faculty of Civil Engineering, Universiti Teknologi MARA, 40450 , Selangor, Malaysia

J. Jani Faculty of Civil Engineering, Universiti Teknologi MARA, 40450 Shah Alam, Selangor, Malaysia

ABSTRACT Landfills and dumping are one of the method for managing solid waste disposal activities in Malaysia and frequently shown as potential sources of groundwater pollution. However, groundwater pollution in the past has not been identified as key environmental issue in Malaysia since only a few cases of environmental and human health incidences have been reported. In our country, there are a lot of landfills which already in-active and active. Both active and in-active landfills still generate leachate. The most significant pollutant that need to be consider in both landfills are leachate contaminants. The objective of this study is to compare the groundwater quality status between active and inactive landfill sites. Tanjung Dua Belas Sanitary Landfill (TDBSL) is an active landfill, whereas Air Hitam Landfill Park (AHLP) is inactive landfill. The groundwater flow direction at TDBSL was from North East to the South West, whereas the groundwater in AHLP is flowing from East to West South West. The groundwater at TDBSL have exceeded the provided benchmark of Raw Drinking Water Quality Guideline in terms of high in NH3-N, TDS, COD, DO, BOD5, TSS, NO2ˉ and NO3ˉ. The heavy metals concentration (descending concentration) at TDBSL landfill are Zn > Pb > Mn > Cu > Fe > Cd > Ni. The sample had been contaminated by Fe, Mn, Pb and Cd. In contrast to the sample at AHLP, the heavy metals concentration in the groundwater sample are Fe > Zn > Mn > Cd > Pb > Ni. The groundwater sample at AHLP had been contaminated by Fe, Mn, Pb and also Cd but the contamination is not due to the leachate in the landfill. Key words: landfill, groundwater quality, leachate, groundwater flow direction. Cite this Article: M.H. Ahmad and J. Jani, Comparison of Groundwater Quality Status at Active and Inactive Landfill in Selangor, Malaysia. International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology, 9(7), 2018, pp. 1896-1902. http://iaeme.com/Home/issue/IJCIET?Volume=9&Issue=7

http://iaeme.com/Home/journal/IJCIET 1896 [email protected] M.H. Ahmad and J. Jani

1. INTRODUCTION Landfills and dumping are one of the method for managing solid waste disposal activities in Malaysia. Groundwater contamination is one of the most serious environmental risks, especially around areas with an industrial history. However, landfills are frequently shown as potential sources of groundwater pollution. Therefore, landfill needs continuous monitoring of the area and surroundings, even after closure of landfills. Sanitary landfilling is presently well-known and being worldwide used due to its low budget and economic advantage. However, leachate from the sanitary landfill can be main cause of pollution to both surface and ground water system. Leachate is an origin of contamination as it can leave the landfill site if it is unlined or if the lining fails and have leakage. Leachate is a highly contaminated liquid that produced in the landfill, it generates during the decaying or biodegradation process, when precipitation (rain water) percolates or leached through the ground surface and subsurface and flows out of the landfill. A large amount of hazardous compounds facing an environmental risk have previously been identified in the landfill leachates. According to [7], landfills can be classified into five levels, which is known as: Level 0 , where there is just an open dumping without any controlled tipping, Level 1, where there is controlled tipping of the open dump, Level 2, where there is a sanitary landfill with a bund and daily soil cover, Level 3, where sanitary landfill with leachate recirculation system only, and lastly, Level 4, where it is a fully engineered sanitary landfill with full leachate treatment facilities and gas monitoring. As most of the landfills were built after year 1989, it also subjected to the Environmental Impact Assessment requirements. Hence, it must be fairly managed and were convenient and excellently sited. In this study, there are two different category of landfill which are operated and non-operated landfills will be investigated on the current groundwater quality study. Legislation is one of the ground rules which are significant in managing groundwater and surface water contamination. These standard and regulations are mandatory to all of the Environmental Practitioner and Environmental Organisation to ensure surface water and groundwater quality in a good condition and safe to be consumed by public. In details, this study focused on comparing groundwater quality status between active and in-active landfills which involved the physical-chemical parameters and heavy metals with respect to the standard and regulation provided by Malaysian Government agencies (i.e., Ministry of Health and Department of Environment).

1.1. Leachate as a Source of Pollution Municipal solid waste (MSW) has also been considered as one of the most serious environmental challenges in many cities in the world [7]. Sanitary landfills have been constructed to manage solid wastes in most countries [6]. Although solid waste management provides benefits, this approach also produces leachates [1]. Leachate is the liquid that leaches from a landfill that is piled with solid wastes. It varies widely in composition depending on the age of the landfill and the type of waste that being dumped in the landfill. It usually contains both dissolved and suspended material. In fact, the term “leachate” is so often applied to landfill leachate, both within the waste management industry and outside, that it is easy to forget that leachate is the term used for any liquid produced by the action of leaching. Leaching occurs when water percolates through any permeable material. Chemicals can leach into the groundwater by means of precipitation and surface runoff over the landfill. New landfills are required to equip with clay or synthetic liners and proper leachate collection systems to shield groundwater from any contamination. However, the most older landfills do not have this kind of safety features. Old landfills were often constructed

http://iaeme.com/Home/journal/IJCIET 1897 [email protected] Comparison of Groundwater Quality Status at Active and Inactive Landfill in Selangor, Malaysia over aquifers or closed to surface waters and in permeable soils with shallow water tables, which will encourage the potential for leachate to contaminate ground water. Inactive landfills can continue to face a groundwater pollution threat if they are not capped with an impermeable material before closure to prohibit the percolation of contaminants by precipitation [4]. Based on the study made by [3], leachate is one of the main root cause of groundwater and surface water contamination if it is not properly collected, rehabilitated and safely disposed as it may leached through soil reaching the aquifers below the ground. Furthermore, [2] had reported that the subsequent migration of leachate away from landfill boundaries and the release to the adjacent environment is a serious environmental concern and a threat to public health and safety. Leachate often contains high concentrations of various pollutants namely organic matter and inorganic ions including heavy metals. Therefore, this study was conducted to evaluate and compare the groundwater quality between active and in- active landfill sites

2. STUDY AREA: ACTIVE AND INACTIVE LANDFILL The study area for groundwater sampling consist of active and inactive landfill site in Selangor. Tanjung Dua Belas Sanitary Landfill (TDBSL) is located at Lot 12194, 12195 and 12196 Tg. Dua Belas, Kuala Langat which is 9km to the west of Kuala Lumpur International Airport (Figure 1). This active sanitary landfill had been operated by Worldwide Holdings Berhad (WHB) Environment since 2010 and it operated to take over the end of concession period of Sungai Sedu Sanitary Landfill. This landfill had been active for almost 9 years since it first commencement on 1st January 2010 and the landfill have a concession of 25 years under the State . The area of the sanitary landfill is about 160 acres equipped with full level 4 sanitary landfill facilities.

Figure 1 Location of the landfill sites. The second landfill site is Air Hitam Worldwide Landfill Park (AHLP). AHLP is located at Air Hitam Forest Reserve in Mukim Petaling, Daerah Petaling, , Selangor (Figure1). Under the same operator, this sanitary landfill had already being closed for almost 12 years but still undergoing Landfill Closure and Post Closure Maintenance Activity. It is also considered as the first level 4 sanitary landfill where the facilities such as Waste Reception Area (Site office, Weighbridge office, Weighbridge), Leachate Treatment Plant, Waste Cell and 2MW Landfill Gas Power Plant equipped). It has been operated for almost 11

http://iaeme.com/Home/journal/IJCIET 1898 [email protected] M.H. Ahmad and J. Jani years since 1st of April 1995 until 31st December 2006. The contract is actually for 20 years design lifespan. However, there are rapid human settlement around the area force it to close 9 years earlier.

2.1. Hydrogeological Description The TDBSL landfill is located on top of the peaty alluvial deposit consisting mainly of peat and clayey-silt (<20%), clayey-silt (50 – 70%) and sands (<20%). This site is more peaty to clayey-silt near the ground surface but more clayey-silt below 5 m depth to sandy in the deeper layers (>21 m), representing the shallow confined aquifer. Based on the borehole logging data, a clayey-silt layer forms the top 5 m to 21 m of the alluvium. The minimum thickness of the peat beneath the landfill site is approximately 4 to 5 m. The clay is underlain by an aquifer layer of sand and silty sand with the thickness of 8 to 15 m. However, the bottom portion of this aquifer layer consists of interbedded layers and lenses of clayey silt and gravel of variable thicknesses. Hydrogeology in the AHLP area is primarily surrounded by Kenny Hill Formation which consist of mudstone, shale and sandstone. The voids of sandstone within the Kenny Hill Formation are often infilled and cemented by clayey matrix materials, thus the original porosity of this aquifer has been reduced. Groundwater occurrences and flows in sandstone aquifers mainly within the secondary porosity and permeability features such as lineaments, joints and faults. There are four aquifer systems identified throughout the study area consisting of semi-consolidated sand, sandstone within Kenny Hill Formation, limestone and fractured zones within the granite.

3. METHODOLOGY OF STUDY Five samples at each sampling site were collected using translucent rigid HDPE sampling bottles. Generally, one (1) raw leachate sample (RL) from the collecting pond, two (2) quantity of borehole samples (groundwater sample) (BH), one (1) final discharge sample (FD) and one (1) nearby drainage sample (DW) were collected. Description of the sample location at sampling sites is tabulated in Table 1. In this paper, only groundwater quality data from borehole is discussed and compared between active and inactive landfill.

Table 1 Sample description Sample Description of sample location location Borehole Borehole is a monitoring well which is located in the landfill to monitor (BH) the groundwater quality every quarterly. Final Discharge Final disposal of treated leachate into the waterbodies outside of landfill. (FD) Drainage Drainage water also called streams water which is surface water nearby Water (DW) the landfill site. Raw Leachate Raw leachate is collected in a collecting pond only. (RL)

3.1. Groundwater Flow Direction The groundwater flow direction was estimated based on three-point graphical method [8]. This simple method involved 3 points which is referred to the 3 boreholes location or point in the study area. The depth to water level in the borehole was measured by using Solinst 101

http://iaeme.com/Home/journal/IJCIET 1899 [email protected] Comparison of Groundwater Quality Status at Active and Inactive Landfill in Selangor, Malaysia model water level meter and the datum using digital GPS. Figure 2 shows the illustration of groundwater flow direction at TDBSL and AHLP landfill.

Figure 2 Groundwater flow direction

3.2. Physical and Chemical Groundwater Quality Parameters The groundwater quality test includes of physical-chemical and heavy metal characteristics. The water quality was compared to the standard and regulation by Malaysian Ministry of Health and Malaysian Department of Environment. There are eleven physical-chemical parameters tested in this study; temperature, pH value, Conductivity, Total Dissolved Solids (TDS), Total Suspended Solids (TSS), Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD), Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD), Ammonical Nitrogen (NH3-N), Sulfate (SO4²ˉ), Nitrate (NO3ˉ), Nitrite (NO2ˉ). There are also eight heavy metals parameters was tested which are known as Cadmium (Cd), Chromium (Cr), Copper (Cu), Iron (Fe), Lead (Pb), Manganese (Mn), Nickel (Ni), and Zinc (Zn).

4. PHYSICAL – CHEMICAL AND HEAVY METAL STATUS OF GROUNDWATER At each landfill site, groundwater status was measured at one (1) groundwater borehole. Physically, groundwater at TDBSL’s borehole have very brownish color due to the existing of peat layer underneath the landfill site whereas sample of groundwater from borehole AHLP had the clearer color due to the aquifer lay in the bed of sandstone. The pH value for both samples are within the range of the National Raw Drinking Water Quality Benchmark which is within 6.5 to 9 pH value. However, the pH value of groundwater sample at TDBSL had slightly lowest value as compared to the pH value of groundwater sample at AHLP.

Figure 3 Comparison of TDS and NH3-N between active (TDSBL) and inactive (AHLP) landfill The TDS value for the groundwater sample at TDBSL is 1474 mg/L which is higher than at AHLP which is only 44.8 mg/L. The allowable limit which is approved by Ministry of Health in the Guideline of National Raw Drinking Water Quality is 1000 mg/L. Obviously,

http://iaeme.com/Home/journal/IJCIET 1900 [email protected] M.H. Ahmad and J. Jani the TDS value at TDBSL is exceeded allowable limit. The NH3-N content measured at borehole from TDBSL is 5.5 mg/L and it is slightly higher than at AHLP which is only 3.91 mg/L. NH3-N content is higher at both samples could possibly contaminated by ammoniacal nitrogen and it exceeded the benchmark of 1.5 mg/L. The lowest DO concentration (2.79 mg/L) is at borehole from TDBSL as compared to the AHLP groundwater sample (10.33 mg/L). Since low DO is available in the groundwater sample from TDBSL, the fish and other aquatic organisms may not be survived. As dissolved oxygen levels in water drops below 5.0 mg/l, aquatic life is put under stress and the lower the concentration, the greater the stress. If BOD level is high, DO level will eventually decrease because the oxygen that is available in the water is being consumed by the bacteria or smallest organisms. COD concentration for the groundwater sample at TDBSL is 371 mg/L which is higher than AHLP groundwater sample which is only 114 mg/L. The higher the BOD value, will increase the value of COD. Total Suspended Solids (TSS) in the sample at TDBSL recorded the lowest with 134 mg/L of concentration as compared to the groundwater sample at AHLP. High concentration of TSS from sample at AHLP happened due to the limitation and disturbance during the groundwater sampling. The nitrite content in both sampling locations low. However, the conductivity of groundwater sample at TDBSL also very high with 2.43 mS/cm as compared to the groundwater sample at AHLP with only 0.088 mS/cm. Sulfate (SO4²ˉ) content is absent in both groundwater samples. The heavy metals (in descending order of concentration) of groundwater sample at TDBSL are Zn > Pb > Mn > Cu > Fe > Cd > Ni. The sample had been contaminated by Fe, Mn, Pb and Cd. In contrast to the sample at AHLP, the concentration of heavy metals are Fe > Zn > Mn > Cd > Pb > Ni. The groundwater sample at AHLP had been contaminated by Fe, Mn, Pb and Cd. However, the presence of Fe is not related to the leachate in the landfill. Fe contamination at borehole in AHLP most probably related to the steel borehole casing where the steel might have corroded and led to high in Fe content in the groundwater sample. Figure 3 shows the comparison of heavy metals between borehole in TDBSL and AHLP landfill.

Figure 3 Heavy metal concentration at TDBSL and AHLP landfill

http://iaeme.com/Home/journal/IJCIET 1901 [email protected] Comparison of Groundwater Quality Status at Active and Inactive Landfill in Selangor, Malaysia

5. CONCLUSIONS In general, groundwater flows direction in both landfills are moves towards the drainage or surface water nearby. The physical- chemical concentration at active landfill (TDBSL) is more higher compared to the inactive landfill (AHLP). For the heavy metal concentration, the groundwater from inactive landfill (AHLP) had been contaminated by a bunch of Iron (Fe), Zinc (Zn), Manganese (Mn) and Cadmium (Cd) content whereas in TDBSL, the groundwater samples had the highest amount of Lead (Pb), Cadmium (Cd), Copper (Cu), and Manganese (Mn). It can be concluded that Tanjung Dua Belas Sanitary Landfill (TDBSL) groundwater sample might had been affected by the leachate because the concentration of heavy metals in raw leachate and final discharge reflect the concentration of heavy metal at groundwater boreholes. The most significant heavy metals that might have correlation between leachate and groundwater samples are Cd, Fe, Mn Pb and Cu. In contrast, the groundwater at AHLP landfill is not much affected by leachate.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The authors would like to thank the Worldwide Holding Environment Berhad and Department of Mineral and Geosciences for giving permission to take samples at landfill sites and use secondary data for the study. The authors also would like to acknowledge internal fund funded by Universiti Teknologi MARA (UiTM), Institute of Quality and Knowledge Advancement (InQKA) and support from Faculty of Civil Engineering, Universiti Teknologi MARA (UiTM).

REFERENCES [1] Aziz, S.Q., Aziz, H.A., Yusoff, M.S. (2011) Optimum process parameters for the treatment of landfill leachate using powdered activated carbon augmented sequencing batch reactor (SBR) technology. Sep. Sci. Technol., 46 (2011), pp. 1-12. [2] Fauziah, S. H., & Agamuthu, P. (2005). Pollution Impact of MSW Landfill Leachate. Malaysian Journal of Science, 24(1), 31-37. [3] El-Salam, M.M.A., Abu-Zuid, G.I. (2014) Impact of landfill leachate on the groundwater quality: a case study in Egypt. J. Adv. Res, 6 (4) (2015), pp. 579-586 [4] EPA (2015) Ground Water Contamination: Magnificient Ground Water Connection https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-08/documents/mgwc-gwc1 [5] Ministry of Housing and Local Government, Malaysia (1990) Technical guidelines on sanitary landfill design and operation (draft).Technical Section of the Local Government Division, Kuala Lumpur [6] Mojiri, A., Lou, Z., Mohd Tajuddin, R., Farrajid, H., Alifare, N. (2016) Co-treatment of landfill leachate and municipal wastewater using the ZELIAC/zeolite constructed wetland system. Journal of Environmental Management.Volume 166, 15 January 2016, Pages 124- 130 [7] Oloruntade, A.J., Adeoye, P.A., Alao, F. (2013) Municipal solid waste collection and management strategies in Akure, South-Western Nigeria. Casp. J. Env. Sci., 11 (1) (2013), pp. 1-10 [8] United States Environmental Protection Agency [2014] 3PE: A tool for estimating groundwater flow vectors. EPA 600/R-14/273 September 2014. www.epa.gov/ada

http://iaeme.com/Home/journal/IJCIET 1902 [email protected]