DOCSLIB.ORG

Long Range Solid Waste Management Plan Environmental Assessment

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read 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......................................................................................... H-15 2.8 Terrestrial and Aquatic Environment.................................................... H-15 2.9 Transportation...................................................................................... H-16 3.0 WASTE QUANTITIES AND CHARACTERISTICS ........................................ H-17 3.1 Service Area ........................................................................................ H-17 3.2 Waste Quantities and Characteristics.................................................. H-17 4.0 LANDFILL EXPANSION DESIGN ................................................................. H-19 4.1 Landfill Design Criteria......................................................................... H-19 4.2 Limits of Landfilling .............................................................................. H-19 4.3 Base Contours ..................................................................................... H-20 4.4 Final Contours ..................................................................................... H-21 4.5 Landfill Capacity Calculations .............................................................. H-21 5.0 SITE FEATURES ........................................................................................... H-24 5.1 Site Entrance and On-Site Roads........................................................ H-24 5.2 Weigh Scale and Scale House ............................................................ H-24 5.3 Equipment Building.............................................................................. H-24 5.4 Internal Drainage Ditch ........................................................................ H-25 5.5 Storm Water Management Pond ......................................................... H-25 5.6 Stockpiles ............................................................................................ H-25 5.7 Drop-Off Area ...................................................................................... H-25 Page H-i Long Range Solid Waste Management Plan Environmental Assessment Appendix H – Design and Operations Report - August 2007 6.0 SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT ............................................................. H-26 6.1 Drainage Design Objectives ................................................................ H-26 6.2 Plan Components ................................................................................ H-26 6.2.1 Separation of Surface Drainage System from Leachate ........... H-26 6.2.2 Infiltration of Surface Water....................................................... H-27 7.0 LEACHATE MANAGEMENT ......................................................................... H-28 7.1 Leachate Management Objectives ...................................................... H-28 7.2 Final Cover Design .............................................................................. H-28 7.3 Leachate Generation ........................................................................... H-29 7.4 Leachate Characterization ................................................................... H-30 7.5 Leachate Control System..................................................................... H-31 7.5.1 Design Approach and Rationale ............................................... H-31 7.5.2 Leachate Control System.......................................................... H-31 7.5.3 Compliance with the Engineered Facilities Guideline................ H-33 7.6 Leachate Treatment/Disposal .............................................................. H-36 8.0 LANDFILL GAS MANAGEMENT .................................................................. H-37 8.1 Landfill Gas Management Objectives .................................................. H-37 8.2 Landfill Gas Composition ..................................................................... H-37 8.3 Assessment of Need for Collection of Landfill Gas .............................. H-38 8.4 Assessment of Need for Control of Subsurface Migration of Landfill Gas.......................................................................................... H-38 9.0 LANDFILL DEVELOPMENT AND OPERATION........................................... H-40 9.1 Initial Site Preparation.......................................................................... H-40 9.2 Development Sequence....................................................................... H-40 9.3 Hours of Operation .............................................................................. H-41 9.4 Site Equipment .................................................................................... H-41 9.5 Landfill Staff ......................................................................................... H-41 9.6 Daily Operations .................................................................................. H-42 9.7 Surface Water Management ................................................................ H-43 9.8 Leachate Management ........................................................................ H-44 10.0 CONTROL AND MAINTENANCE.................................................................. H-45 10.1 Access and On-site Traffic Control ...................................................... H-45 10.2 Waste Control ...................................................................................... H-46 10.3 Litter Control ........................................................................................ H-47 10.4 Odour Control ...................................................................................... H-47 10.5 Dust Control......................................................................................... H-48 10.6 Noise Control ....................................................................................... H-48 10.7 Vector Control...................................................................................... H-49 Page H-ii Long Range Solid Waste Management Plan Environmental Assessment Appendix H – Design and Operations Report - August 2007 10.8 Fire Control .......................................................................................... H-49 10.9 Site Inspection and Maintenance......................................................... H-49 10.9.1 Inspection.................................................................................. H-49 10.9.2 Routine Maintenance ................................................................ H-51 11.0 MONITORING AND REPORTING ................................................................. H-53 11.1 Operation and Development Monitoring .............................................. H-53 11.1.1 Development Monitoring ........................................................... H-53 11.1.2 Site Inspection........................................................................... H-54 11.1.3 Incoming Waste Records .......................................................... H-55 11.2 Environmental Monitoring .................................................................... H-55 11.2.1 Groundwater and Leachate Monitoring ..................................... H-55 11.2.2 Surface Water Monitoring ......................................................... H-57 11.2.3 Landfill Gas Monitoring ............................................................. H-58 11.3 Maintenance of the Monitoring System................................................ H-59 11.4 Complaint Response Procedure .......................................................... H-59 11.5 Annual Reports .................................................................................... H-60 11.5.1 Development and Operations Report........................................ H-60 11.5.2 Environmental Monitoring Report.............................................. H-61 12.0 SITE CLOSURE............................................................................................. H-62 12.1
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]
  • From the Past to the Future of Landfill Engineering Through Case Histories
    Missouri University of Science and Technology Scholars' Mine International Conference on Case Histories in (1998) - Fourth International Conference on Geotechnical Engineering Case Histories in Geotechnical Engineering 08 Mar 1998 - 15 Mar 1998 From the Past to the Future of Landfill Engineering Through Case Histories R. Kerry Rowe University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarsmine.mst.edu/icchge Part of the Geotechnical Engineering Commons Recommended Citation Rowe, R. Kerry, "From the Past to the Future of Landfill Engineering Through Case Histories" (1998). International Conference on Case Histories in Geotechnical Engineering. 4. https://scholarsmine.mst.edu/icchge/4icchge/4icchge-session00/4 This Article - Conference proceedings is brought to you for free and open access by Scholars' Mine. It has been accepted for inclusion in International Conference on Case Histories in Geotechnical Engineering by an authorized administrator of Scholars' Mine. This work is protected by U. S. Copyright Law. Unauthorized use including reproduction for redistribution requires the permission of the copyright holder. For more information, please contact [email protected]. 145 Proceedings: Fourth International Conference on Case Histories in Geotechnical Engineering~ St. Louis, Missouri, March 9-12, 1998. FROM THE PAST TO THE FUTURE OF LANDFILL ENGINEERING THROUGH CASE HISTORIES R. Kerry Rowe Paper No. SOA-9 Dept. of Civil & Environmental Engineering University of Western Ontario London, Ontario, Canada N6A 5B9 AIISTRACT The advances in landfill engineering are outlined based on a number of case histories illustrating past problems, hydraulic performance of clay liners, diffusive transport through liners, hydraulic containment and clogging of leachate collection systems.
    [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]
  • A Review of Landfill Leachate Treatment by Microalgae: Current
    processes Review A Review of Landfill Leachate Treatment by Microalgae: Current Status and Future Directions Tabish Nawaz 1,2, Ashiqur Rahman 3,4 , Shanglei Pan 1,5, Kyleigh Dixon 5, Burgandy Petri 5 and Thinesh Selvaratnam 1,3,5,* 1 Center for Advances in Water & Air Quality, Lamar University, 4400 S M L King Jr Pkwy, Beaumont, TX 77705, USA; [email protected] (T.N.); [email protected] (S.P.) 2 Environmental Science and Engineering Department, Indian Institute of Technology Bombay, Powai, Mumbai, Maharashtra 400076, India 3 Center for Midstream Management and Science, Lamar University, 4400 S M L King Jr Pkwy, Beaumont, TX 77705, USA; [email protected] 4 Department of Chemical Engineering, Lamar University, 4400 S M L King Jr Pkwy, Beaumont, TX 77705, USA 5 Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering, Lamar University, 4400 S M L King Jr Pkwy, Beaumont, TX 77705, USA; [email protected] (K.D.); [email protected] (B.P.) * Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +1-409-880-8712 Received: 28 February 2020; Accepted: 19 March 2020; Published: 26 March 2020 Abstract: Solid waste generation has been projected to increase worldwide. Presently, the most applied methodology to dispose of solid waste is landfilling. However, these landfill sites, over time release a significant quantity of leachate, which can pose serious environmental issues, including contamination of water resources. There exist many physicochemical and biological landfill leachate treatment schemes with varying degrees of success. With an increasing focus on sustainability, there has been a demand for developing eco-friendly, green treatment schemes for landfill leachates with viable resource recovery and minimum environmental footprints.
    [Show full text]
  • Compliance Boundary at the Keele Valley Landfill Site
    Compliance Boundary at the Keele Valley Landfill Site (City Council on August 1, 2, 3 and 4, 2000, adopted this Clause, without amendment.) The Policy and Finance Committee and the Works Committee jointly recommend the adoption of the following report (June 27, 2000) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services: Purpose: To obtain the approval of City Council to request the Ministry of the Environment (MOE) to move the compliance boundary of the Keele Valley Landfill Site from the edge of the secondary buffer lands south of the City-owned lands northwards to the south end of a modified primary buffer, to take place upon the completion of landfilling operations at Keele Valley. Financial Implications and Impact Statement: If the recommendation is approved, subject to the conditions suggested, there are no financial implications to the City of Toronto. Recommendations: It is recommended that: (1) the City of Toronto request the Ministry of the Environment to amend the Certificate of Approval applicable to the Keele Valley Landfill Site to move the compliance boundary of the landfill from the south end of the secondary buffer lands at Major Mackenzie Drive to the south of the primary buffer lands as redefined as set out in this report; (2) Recommendation No. (1) be subject to the following conditions: (a) York Major Holdings, the owner of the lands comprising the secondary buffer, enter into an agreement with the City of Toronto incorporating the following provisions: (i) any new land use on the lands that are currently part of
    [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]
  • (I) CITY of VAUGHAN COUNCIL MINUTES JUNE 23, 2003 Table Of
    CITY OF VAUGHAN COUNCIL MINUTES JUNE 23, 2003 Table of Contents Minute No. Page No. 138. PRESENTATION..........................................................................................................................118 139. VERBAL REPORT WITH RESPECT TO THE SMOG SUMMIT .................................................118 140. CONFIRMATION OF AGENDA....................................................................................................119 141. DISCLOSURE OF INTEREST .....................................................................................................120 142. ADOPTION OR CORRECTION OF MINUTES............................................................................120 143. DETERMINATION OF ITEMS REQUIRING SEPARATE DISCUSSION.....................................120 144. CONSIDERATION OF ITEMS REQUIRING SEPARATE DISCUSSION ....................................121 145. WILLIAM GRANGER GREENWAY – BARTLEY SMITH GREENWAY (Supplementary Report No. 3)......................................................................................................123 146. ZONING BY-LAW AMENDMENT FILE Z.01.008 DRAFT PLAN OF SUBDIVISION FILE 19T-01V02 MATTHEW GABRIELE & MICHELA TONIETTO REPORT #P.2001.20 (Supplementary Report No. 4) .................................................................................125 147. CONSIDERATION OF ITEMS REQUIRING SEPARATE DISCUSSION ....................................130 148. KEELE VALLEY SMALL VEHICLE TRANSFER STATION AND HHW DEPOT (Addendum No. 3) ........................................................................................................................130
    [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]