LANDFILL DESIGN USING LIMITED

FINANCIAL RESOURCES

ANTONIS MAVROPOULOS

EPEM SA, Solid and Hazardous Waste Department, 141 B Acharnon & Laertiou Str.,
11251 Athens, Greece, e-mail: amavrop@epem.gr

SUMMARY: The objective of this paper is to contribute in finding an effective decision – making
tool for landfill design in developing countries. The paper is based on the experience gained from
the implementation of the project «Action plan for the site location and the development of design,
operation and environmental impact assessment methods of solid waste sanitary landfills in Egypt
governorates» which is granted by EU LIFE 3rd Countries program. Taking into account a risk based
approach, a simplified but effective landfill design tool is proposed. It is believed that such a tool
can provide a good basis for the conceptual landfill design within a framework of limited financial
resources that characterize developing countries.

1. INTRODUCTION

At the end of 1999 European Union granted the Life 3 rd Countries project «Action plan for the site
location and the development of design, operation and environmental impact assessment methods of
solid waste sanitary landfills in Egypt governorates». The main objectives of the program are to
promote a sustainable solid waste management in Egypt, starting with landfill site allocation on a
national level, and to provide effective engineering tools for landfill design and environmental
impact assessment.
While in EU country landfills are considered as the last option in the Waste Management
Hierarchy, in most of the developing countries landfills are the first (and sometimes the only
affordable) step for the expansion of a Waste Management System (Mavropoulos, Karkazi, 1999).
On the other hand, due to the lack of financial resources, landfill environmental standards should be
implemented, achieving the maximum efficiency with the minimum capital and operational cost.
The only way to success at this goal is to relax the landfill standards, when this is possible, without
unduly affecting protection of the environment. Significant efforts have been implemented at this
issue, mainly from ISWA Landfill Working Group (ISWA, 1998) and South African experts (Blight,
1996 and RSA, 1994).
Based on these efforts and utilizing previous results (like Minimum Standards (Rushbrook, Pugh,
1999)), a risk-based approach is proposed in order to provide the conceptual design for leachate
management, as well as for landfill monitoring components.
2. RISK APPROACH

A simplified risk based approach is used in order to identify the parameters that affect the design of
leachate management. It is assumed that the design process starts after the final site allocation has
been identified. A source – path – target methodology is considered in order to approach the landfill
design. The landfill is assumed as a source (or generator) of leachate. Consequently, a source
characterization is necessary for leachate emissions. A safe design approach is used, based on the
sensitivity of groundwater (as targets of leachate related risks).

2.1 Potential for groundwater pollution

It is assumed that the main risk from a leachate leak is the groundwater pollution. This assumption
fits with the advanced needs for integrated water resources protection and management that
characterize a large part of developing countries. The potential for groundwater pollution can be
defined as follows (EPA, 1999):

Pgw = ( LR ) • (WC ) • (TC ) (1)

Where:
Pgw is the Potential groundwater pollution
LR is the Likelihood of Release for the produced leachate
WC is the Waste Characteristics
TC is the Target Characteristics
All of these parameters are discussed below

2.1.1 Likelihood of release

Likelihood to release (or potential to release) is the magnitude that expresses the possibility of a
hazardous substance release. For groundwater, USA EPA has suggested the following expression to
estimate Likelihood of release:

LR = Cf • ( NP + DA + TT ) (2)

Where:
Cf is the containment factor
NP is the net precipitation
DA is the depth to acquifer
TT is the travel time through the surrounding media, depending on hydraulic conductivity

Containment factor Cf represents the natural or artificial protection that is provided against the
leachate leakage. Usually, containment factor may range between total containment (dry- tomb
landfill) to attenuation and disperse landfills. Although this is a very critical point to risk assessment
procedures, in this paper containment factor is not considered for two reasons. Firstly, the
application of this paper starts after the landfill location has been decided. That means that the
designer of the landfill already knows if natural containment do exist and if groundwater protection
is necessary. Secondly, one of the main objectives of this paper is to provide a decision support tool
in order to identify if artificial liner is necessary. So the selection of the type of containment is to be
defined, according the rest parameters.
 Regarding the Net Precipitation, it is preferable to be replaced by the Climatic Water Balance.
The Climatic Water Balance is not a detailed classical water balance, such as one that would be used
to determine ground water recharge. It is a simple calculation that assists in deciding whether
leachate management is required or not. It therefore provides a conservative means determining
whether or not significant leachate generation will occur. The Climatic Water Balance (B) is
calculated using only the two climatic components of the full water balance, namely Rainfall (R)
and Evaporation (E) (ISWA, 1998 and Blight, 1996), as below:

B= R-E (3)

Where
B is the Climate Water Balance in mm of water
R is the rainfall in mm of water
E is the evaporation from a soil surface in mm of water

A first case is if B is positive for less than one year in five for the years for which data is
available. If so leachate management system may not be necessary, especially if other important
factors (waste moisture, groundwater protection etc.) indicate at the same direction. At this case site
is classified as B-. Otherwise, if B is positive for more than one year in five for the years, for which
data is available, the site is classified B+ and leachate management systems are necessary.
Finally, regarding the Depth of the Aquifer and the Travel Time, since the design process starts
after the final site allocation, these parameters are set and they are the same for every alternative
design that does not affect the containment factor.

2.1.2 Waste Characteristics

This paper deals only with Municipal Solid Waste Landfills. That means, that the source
characterization depends on two parameters: the landfill size and the biodegradable fraction of the
waste. In general terms, the following equation is used to estimate WC:

WC = (Q) • (C ) (4)

Where:
Q is the amount of waste in the Landfill
C is the concentration of hazardous substances in waste

Taking into account that the amount of waste is directly related to landfill size, parameter Q can
be substituted by the size of the landfill. All landfills grow in size with the passing of time. The
major characteristic that affects the operation of a landfill and, therefore, the need for facilities, plant
and operating skills is the rate of deposition of waste. However, the final size of a landfill will
determine its long-term pollution potential. The classification system is based on the Maximum
Deposition Rate (MDR) , meaning the maximum quantity of waste that will be disposed of in a year
during landfill’s lifetime. Landfills are characterized as (ISWA, 1998 and Blight, 1996):
♦ Small (S), when the Maximum Deposition Rate is less than 5.000 tons per year. That size
corresponds to 30.000 inhabitants, with a daily production around 0,5 kg/(capita and day).
Practically, this is the case of a lot of rural areas.
♦ Medium (M), when the Maximum Deposition Rate is between 5.000 and 100.000 tons per year.
Practically, that size corresponds to 400.000 inhabitants, with a daily production around 0,7
kg/(capita and day). This is the case of a served area that consists of rural and urban populations.
♦ Large (L), when the Maximum Deposition Rate is over 100.000 tons per year, corresponding to
320.000 inhabitants of an urban area, with a daily production of 0,85 kg/ (capita and day).
Regarding the concentration of the hazardous substances in waste, only Municipal Solid Waste is
considered, thus the main pollutant generator is the biodegradable organic fraction of the waste. That
means that the parameter C can be replaced by another parameter that represents the biodegradable
fraction of the waste.
For the purpose of the classification system, waste will be classified according to its
biodegradable fraction (garden and food waste, paper) like this (Blight, 1996):
♦ If the biodegradable fraction is over 20% dry mass, then waste will be classified as H (meaning
High biodegradable fraction).
♦ If the biodegradable fraction is less than 20% dry mass, then waste will be classified as L
(meaning Low biodegradable fraction).
The dividing point of 20% of biodegradable waste is tentative at present. It should be underlined
that the previous concern only municipal solid waste, exclusively.

2.1.3 Target characteristics

The majority of decisions on standards of design and construction of landfills depends upon the
level of groundwater protection that is necessary. Several approaches are available in order to
determine the level of groundwater protection needed (Pl) and to classify groundwater aquifers and
surface water bodies (Rushbrook, Pugh 1999). In general terms, the following criteria are used:
 The quantity of water that could be abstracted (the “potential sustained yield”).
 The quality of water.
 Whether or not that aquifer is needed (“significance”).
Three basic levels of required protection are considered (Rushbrook, Pugh, 1999 and EEAA,
2000):
♦ Minimum (G1): where the groundwater is unsuitable for human or agricultural use, where its
degradation will not unacceptably impact on the local ecology or where the local climate will
prevent the generation of leachate from any landfill.
♦ Intermediate (G2): for which an attenuate and disperse design may be sufficient.
♦ Maximum (G3): for which full containment design is necessary.

2.1.4 Selection of critical parameters

According the previous analysis, taking into account that site specific factors are given since the
location is identified, it is obvious that equation (1) can be transformed in equation (5):

Pgw = Cf • ( B + Ko) • ( MDR • Bf ) • ( Pl ) (5)

Where:
Cf is the containment factor
B is the Climatic Water Balance (values: B+, B-)
Ko is the constant sum of TT+DA (eq.2)
MDR is the Maximum Deposition Rate (values: S, M or L)
Bf is the Biodegradable fraction indicator (values: H or L)
Pl is the groundwater protection level (values: G1, G2, G3)

So, the potential for groundwater pollution is a function of B, MDR, Bf and Pl. Assuming that
parameter Bf is always H (safe estimation), the potential for groundwater pollution (and
consequently the leachate management design) can be estimated like the following:

Pgw = Cf • K1 • ( B + Ko) • ( MDR • Pl ) or

( Pgw Cf ) = K1 • ( B • MDR • Pl ) + K1 • Ko • ( MDR • Pl ) (6)

Where:

K1 is a constant corresponding to High (H) biodegradable fraction

Equation 6 provides some very useful ideas. Since the site location is known and the scope of
work is to find an effective design, the natural containment factor is something that is also a
constant. Thus the quotient (Pgw/Cf) can be considered as the real risk for groundwater pollution, if
no artificial containment measures should be taken. This quotient is a function of two products
( B • MDR • Pl ) and ( MDR • Pl ) . Each one of them has a separate contribution to what was
mentioned as real risk. Product 1 ( B • MDR • Pl ) represents the combined effect of Water Balance,
Size of Landfill and Groundwater Protection level, while Product 2 ( MDR • Pl ) represents the effect
of the two latest only.
As a result it comes that even with a negative water balance, the increase of the size of the
landfill, the increase of the necessary groundwater protection level or both of them increase the real
risk for groundwater pollution. So protection measures against groundwater pollution have to be
taken in some cases independently of the water balance. The logical consequent of the previous
analysis is that conceptual design should be confronted as a process that increases the artificial
protection measures against groundwater pollution as Products 1 and 2 go higher. By this way the
value of containment factor will be increased and the real risk will be reduced.

3. QUANTIFICATION PROCEDURE

Having the previous risk parameters defined in a qualitative way, someone can proceed to some
quantification efforts. The objective is to understand the relative importance of each contribution to
the real risk rather than to have absolute risk estimation. For that purpose, several assumptions are
considered. In order to quantify the risk for each type of landfill Table 1 is used.

Table 1 – Quantification of parameters for groundwater pollution risk assessment

Parameter Values Numerical Values
Groundwater protection level G1, G2, G3 10, 50, 100
Water Balance B+, B- 20, 100
Size of landfill S, M, L 10,50,100
Obviously, there are 18 different types of landfills according Table 1. For practical reasons,
Products 1 and 2 will be faced separately. Two risk indicators will be used. The first one is R1 the
cubic root of Product 1 and the second is R2 the square root of Product 2. The choice of these
mathematical formulas helps to two issues. Firstly, to normalize all the results in a scale from 1 to
100 and to make them easily comparable. Secondly, to ensure that the final risk indicator will not be
greater than the value of the greatest component of the product. Finally, the assumption that the two
risk indicators contribute equally to the total risk has been made.
Figure 1 provides the two risk indicators for landfills classified as B- (negative water balance)
and Figure 2 provides the risk indicators for landfills classified as B+ (positive water balance). The
size of the landfill and the groundwater protection level are shown using the values of Table 1 (e.g.
landfill G1S is a small (S) landfill of minimum (G1) groundwater protection).

100
80
RISK 60
INDICATORS 40 R1
20 R2
0
G1S G2S G3S G1M G2M G3M G1L G2L G3L
TYPE OF LANDFILL B-

Figure 1: Risk indicators for landfills with negative water balance

100
80
60
RISK INDICATOR
40 R1
20 R2
0
G1S G2S G3S G1M G2M G3M G1L G2L G3L
TYPE OF LANDFILL B+

Figure 2: Risk indicators for landfills with positive water balance

As it is shown in Figure 1, when the Climate Water Balance is negative, the contribution of R2
(indicator for the product ( MDR • Pl ) ) is greater than the contribution of R1 (indicator of the
product ( B • MDR • Pl ) ). On the other hand, when the Climate Water Balance is positive, the
contribution of R1 is greater than the contribution of R2. Figure 3 provides the total risk of the 18
types of landfills and their classification.
 100,00

80,00
TOTAL RISK

60,00

40,00

20,00

0,00
G1SB-

G1SB+

G2SB-

G1MB-

G3SB-

G1LB-

G2SB+

G1MB+

G3SB+

G1LB+

G2MB-

G2MB+

G3MB-

G2LB-

G3MB+

G2LB+

G3LB-

G3LB+
LANDFILL TYPE

Figure 3: Groundwater Risk classification of landfills

4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Table 2 presents the influence of classification to leachate management. As it is shown at Table 2,

the separate components of leachate management systems, such as leachate collection system, liners,
leachate treatment etc. are directly related to the risk classification of the landfills. Table 2 provides
an - easy to use - tool for the conceptual design of leachate management systems.
As it is obvious from Table 2, the minimum requirements for leachate management are strongly
related with the specific features of each site and the corresponded groundwater risk. The reliability
of the resulted conceptual design and its effectiveness in environmental terms depends on the
reliability of the utilized parameters and the certainty that corresponds to them, as in every decision-
making system. But having the sites allocated and some basic data for them, Table 2 provides a good
point to start the decision- making regarding the capital cost of each one, according the available
financial resources. On the other hand, a lot of decisions can not be faced on a macro- level and due
to this reason there are a lot of “O” symbols in Table 2. “O” symbol means that the specific
component may not be included within conceptual design but this has to be decided only having the
knowledge of the local conditions. So Table 2 can not substitute the site – specific design, in no way.
As it can be shown at Table 2 the reduction of the water entering the site from surface run-off and
the estimation of the unsaturated zone beneath the landfill are necessary to almost every type of
landfill. So these two measures can be easily set as minimum requirements for leachate
management. The need for a low permeability cap is also necessary to a lot of landfill types,
although it is more directly related to the water balance parameter and to the size of the landfill.
At 10 of the 18-landfill types liners deem to be a necessity and the same comes for groundwater
monitoring facilities. Of course, whenever a liner do exist, a leachate collection system is also
considered as a non- alternative option and at least a recirculation system and a collection pond
should be constructed. On the other hand leachate treatment (other than recirculation) seems to be a
requirement only for 3 type of landfills, while in a lot of cases the need for a leachate treatment
facility depends upon local conditions which can not be determined in this paper.
Table 2: Leachate control measures according the classification system
Leachate
O O O O O X O O X O O X
PROTECTION MEASURES - COST
Treatment*
Leachate
Collection O O X O X O X X O O X X X X
System **
Groundwater
O O X O X O X X X X X X X X
monitoring
Liners O O X O X O X X X X X X X X
Leachate level
O O O O X X X X X X X X X X X X
control
Low
permeability O O O O X X X X X X X X X X X X
cap
Unsaturated
zone O O X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
estimation
Reduction of
water entering X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
the site
LANDFILL G1S G1S G2S G1M G3S G1L G2S G1M G3S G1L G2M G2M G3M G2L G3M G2L G3L G3L
TYPE B- B+ B- B- B- B- B+ B+ B+ B+ B- B+ B- B- B+ B+ B- B+

X: It means that the specific measures have to be taken for the specific type of landfill.
O: It means that the specific measure has to be established only if local conditions are favorable.
*: It means treatment other than recirculation
**: Leachate collection system means piping system or drainage blanket. Whenever a leachate collection system tick (X) exists without
leachate treatment tick, recirculation is the only leachate treatment. RISK
 It should be noticed that in Table 2, as the risk goes higher the protection measures go more
complicated and expensive also. This general rule has some exceptions in landfills G2SB+, G3SB+,
G2MB+, G3MB+ where protection measures make a peak. All of these cases have more than
intermediate groundwater protection and positive water balance.
Another way to utilize Table 2 and Figure 3 can be found when a comparison of different sites
has to be made, during site allocation efforts. In stead of looking for the conceptual design
depending on the landfill characteristics (groundwater protection, water balance and size) and the
relative risk, someone can read the table looking for the characteristics that have to be preferred in
order to have low capital (and operational) cost. By this way Table 2 and Figure 3 can be utilized in
order to provide ready to use data for a comparative analysis of different proposed sites and cost-
benefit analysis for alternative designs.
Figure 3 and Table 2 may have one additional use. They can provide a good evaluation tool for
the current landfills. Normally these landfills range between uncontrolled landfilling and what is
called “engineered” or “semi-controlled” landfills in most of the developing countries. Table 2 and
Figure 3 can provide some improvements that have to be made in these landfills in order to increase
environmental protection. In case these improvements are cost- effective and easy in construction
terms, then the specific landfills may be seriously upgraded. Otherwise, this may be the case of a
landfill that has to be closed directly.

5. CONCLUSIONS
Based on an already existing classification scheme and some well defined parameters, a new
approach is presented at this paper: a risk approach to leachate management conceptual design. The
real effort, at this point, is to set out different Minimum Requirements according the landfill
characteristics. This approach should be considered as an assessment tool, which classify relatively
the landfills according their risk for groundwater, rather than an absolute quantified scale that
provides a certain risk for each landfill. Consequently, a decision – making system is presented in
order to help the landfill designer to select the necessary components of the leachate management
system.
The risk classification of the landfills is based on three parameters:
The groundwater protection level.
The size of the landfill.
The Climate Water Balance.
One major output of the system is that groundwater potential pollution is more sensitive to
landfill size and groundwater protection level, than to the Climate water balance.
The risk classification of the several types of landfills (Figure 3) and the Minimum Requirements
of Table 2 that resulted should be faced, as semi-empirical or practical guidelines that can not
substitute the specific studies, needed in every case. They will serve more as guidance for the
designers rather than an absolute or certain way to design a landfill, and of course, the application of
this guidance presupposes the deep knowledge of the local conditions, since every single landfill is a
unique case.
There are several ways to utilize the risk classification of the 18 types of landfills and the
corresponded conceptual design. These ways include conceptual design, site allocation procedures,
evaluation of current landfill practices and improvements in current landfills.

9
REFERENCES

Α. Mavropoulos, A. Karkazi, 1999, Assessing the feasibility of solid waste treatment and disposal
scenarios in developing countries, Proceedings of Environment 99, 2nd International Conference
for Environmental Management Technologies, Cairo
ISWA, 1998, Guidance for Landfilling Waste in Economically Developing Countries, pp. 95-100
G.E. Blight, 1996, Standards for Landfills in Developing Countries, Waste Management and
Research, Vol. 14, pp. 399-414
Department of Water Affairs and Forestry (RSA), 1994, Minimum Requirements for the Handling
and Disposal of Hazardous Waste, 1st edition, Pretoria, Republic of South Africa
Philip Rushbrook, Michael Pugh, 1999, Solid Waste Landfills in Middle – and Lower – Income
Countries, World Bank Technical Paper No 426,
EPA, USA, Hazardous Ranking System Rules, 1999 edition
Egyptian Environmental Affairs Agency (EEAA), 2000, Codes of Practice for sanitary landfill
design, construction and operation, Cairo

10