Appropriate landfill technology
HEIJO SCHARFF
NV Afvalzorg Holding, PO Box 2, 1566 ZG Assendelft, The Netherlands (e: [email protected])
SUMMARY: By describing four different cases from the Netherlands it is pointed out
that there are possibilities to counteract negative environmental effects of
uncontrolled landfills at low costs. In transient economies where expenditure on
waste management is necessarily restricted it is recommended that improvements
should be made gradually. Furthermore it is shown that even in a developed country
like the Netherlands financial constraints sometimes require very simple
environmental protection measures.
INTRODUCTION
In Romania as in many countries in the world there is attention for a change towards
ecological landfilling. The reason is that the present waste management practices are
considered to have too many negative impacts on the environment. The main
problems in Romania seem to be (Chiriac, 1999; author’s site visits):
 inefficient collection resulting in waste lying in the streets or along the road to the
landfill;
 bad or no landfill management resulting in fires, smoke, dust, vermin, windblown
litter and exposure of waste to citizens and animals;
 absence of measures to control leachate, ground- and surface water
contamination and landfill gas emission.
It should be stressed however that this situation is not much different from the
situation in many south European countries. In many western European countries
where sanitary landfills now are state-of-the-art similar situations existed only 20 to
30 years ago. In that respect it is justified to say that Romania and countries with
similar situations only have to do a little bit of catching up. Sanitary landfills with
acceptance control, registration, double bottom liners, capping with double top liners,
leachate treatment, landfill gas extraction and utilization, groundwater monitoring and
arrangements for aftercare may be ecologically sustainable. But in transient
economies they are probably not economically sustainable. National regulations in
countries with transient economies often set standards for environmental protection
from landfills that are far above what can reasonably be afforded (Pugh, 1999). As a
result the regulations are often ignored. The WHO (Macfarlane, 1996) has calculated
that up to 0.5% of the gross national product is an acceptable cost level for waste
management, i.e. collection and disposal. Accepting that figure it can be calculated
that an ecological landfill is hardly affordable to the Romanian population. The gross
national product per Romanian citizen being around 1,600 Euro per year means that
around 8 Euro per inhabitant per year can be spend on waste management. This will
probably finance only the collection system, leaving very little money for sanitary
landfill. Therefore a sharp increase in gate fees at landfills in the present economic
situation is probably not possible. Moreover if an ecological landfill is close to a nonecological landfill the difference in gate fee cannot be higher than the difference in
transport cost. Otherwise the ecological landfill will not receive any waste. The need
for incremental improvement from uncontrolled tipping towards sanitary landfill is
crucial if such changes are to be sustained. It took the Netherlands 30 years to arrive
where it is now. Romania can probably do that faster, butgradual improvements are
advised. In this paper four cases from the Netherlands will be presented with the
gradual improvements
are advised.toIngradually
this paperimprove
four cases
frompractices.
the Netherlands
be
intention
to point out possibilities
landfill
The firstwill
case
presented
the intention
to point out
to protection
gradually improve
landfill
is
a landfill with
with present
day standards.
The possibilities
environmental
measures,
practices. The
first case monitoring
is a landfillsystem
with present
standards. The
environmental
acceptance
procedures,
as wellday
as operational
aspects
and cost
protection
measures,
acceptance
procedures,
system between
as well as1977
operational
levels
will be
presented.
The second
case is amonitoring
landfill operated
and
aspects
and
cost
levels
will
be
presented.
The
second
case
is
a
landfill
operated
1993 with less protection measures and lower cost level. This landfill is still
between 1977
1993
with
lessthat
protection
measures
and
lower
cost level. This landfill
monitored.
Theand
paper
will
show
in this case
a lot of
the
environmental
is still monitored.
Thefirst
paper
thatatinconsiderable
this case a lower
lot of cost.
the environmental
improvements
of the
casewill
areshow
reached
The third case
improvements
of
the
first
case
are
reached
at
considerable
lower
cost.
The thirdby
case
is a landfill remediation project with extensive protection measures financed
re- is
a
landfill
remediation
project
with
extensive
protection
measures
financed
by
re-opening
opening the landfill. The fourth case is a landfill remediation project in a nature
the landfill. The fourth case is a landfill remediation project in a nature reserve. Rereserve.
Re- opening in this case was not possible and therefore funding was very
opening in this case was not possible and therefore funding was very limited.
limited. Consequently only very simple environmental measures could be
Consequently only very simple environmental measures could be implemented.
implemented.
CASE 1: NAUERNA
CASE 1: NAUERNA
The Nauerna landfill was opened in 1985. The total surface of the landfill is 73 ha. The
The
was
in 1985.
totalm3surface
of the accepts
landfill is400,000
73 ha. to
total Nauerna
permittedlandfill
volume
of opened
the landfill
is 8.5 The
million
. The landfill
The
total
permitted
volume
of
the
landfill
is
8.5
million
m
3
.
The
landfill
accepts
500,000 tonnes of waste per year. Due to the fact that in the region household waste
400,000
to 500,000
tonnes
wastethe
per landfill
year. Due
to thereceives
fact thatcontaminated
in the region soils,
was incinerated
since
the of
1970’s
mainly
household
waste
was
incinerated
since
the
1970’s
the
landfill
mainly
receives
sludges, residues of construction and demolition waste recycling and some
commercial
contaminated
soils,
sludges,
residues
of
construction
and
demolition
waste
recycling
and industrial waste. There also is a permit to accept the least harmful category
of
and
some commercial
and
industrial
There also before
is a permit
accept thetoleast
hazardous
waste. Waste
delivery
haswaste.
to be announced
hand.toAccording
the
harmful
category ofpermission
hazardousiswaste.
Waste
delivery
be announced
before
waste composition
granted
to deliver
it tohas
the to
landfill.
Upon arrival
at the
hand.
to thedocuments
waste composition
permission
is granted
deliver
it to the at
landfill According
the acceptance
are checked.
At regular
intervals to
waste
is sampled
random Upon
to check
the at
composition.
Theacceptance
trucks are then
directedare
towards
the tipface.
At
landfill.
arrival
the landfill the
documents
checked.
At regular
the
tipface
a
supervisor
gives
instructions
on
where
to
unload
the
waste.
During
intervals waste is sampled at random to check the composition. The trucks are then
unloadingtowards
the supervisor
checks
the
wastea for
irregularities.
directed
the tipface.
At the
tipface
supervisor
gives Unacceptable
instructions onloads
whereor
loads
containing
items
that
require
other
treatment
or
disposal
methods
are
refused.
to unload the waste. During unloading the supervisor checks the waste for
This waste isUnacceptable
immediately loads
reloaded
on the
truck toitems
be that
taken
away.other
Refusal of
irregularities.
or loads
containing
require
acceptanceorisdisposal
reportedmethods
to the authorities
in order
prevent
disposal.
Waste that
treatment
are refused.
Thistowaste
is illegal
immediately
reloaded
on
the truck to be taken away. Refusal of acceptance is reported to the authorities in
order to prevent illegal disposal. Waste that is accepted is immediately processed
WWTP
clay
sandy
sandy clay
clay
clay
clay
aquifer
aquifer
hydrostatic pressure shallow groundwater
hydrostatic pressure deep groundwater
direction of waterflow
bottom liner
drain
Figure 1: Geohydrological situation Nauerna landfill
Figure 1: Geohydrological situation Nauerna landfill
landfill
landfill
by bulldozers and/or compactors. According to the nature of the waste daily or
weekly
cover is
against
wind-blown
litter and and/or
vermin.compactors.
Since 1997According
all Afvalzorg
is accepted
is applied
immediately
processed
by bulldozers
to
landfills
haveofanthe
ISO
14001
certificate
forcover
their isenvironmental
management
system.
the nature
waste
daily
or weekly
applied against
wind-blown litter
and
Allvermin.
actionsSince
on the1997
landfill
written down
procedures.
non-compliances
all are
Afvalzorg
landfillsin have
an ISOAll14001
certificate forare
their
reported,
stored
in
archives
and
when
necessary
reported
to
the
authorities.
At
environmental management system. All actions on the landfill are written down in
regular
intervals
and external
audits are
held in
to archives
continually
the
procedures.
All internal
non-compliances
are reported,
stored
andimprove
when necessary
landfill
practice
to checkAtcompliance
with the
certificate’s
requirements.
reported
to theand
authorities.
regular intervals
internal
and external
audits areThe
held to
landfill
has itsimprove
own leachate
treatment
which
produces
a high
effluent
continually
the landfill
practiceplant,
and to
check
compliance
withquality
the certificate’s
requirements.
The landfill
has its own
leachate
plant,
which landfill
produces
that
can be discharged
to surface
water.
Unliketreatment
many other
landfills
gasa ishigh
qualityextracted
effluent that
can operation
be discharged
surface
water.toUnlike
many
landfills
already
during
of thetolandfill
in order
minimize
theother
emission
of
landfill gas
is already
extracted
duringtooperation
of the landfill
order
to numerous
minimize the
methane
(a strong
green
house gas)
the atmosphere.
With inthe
aid of
emission that
of methane
(a strong
greenlevels
houseand
gas)
to the
atmosphere.
With
aid of
boreholes
are checked
for water
water
quality
the landfill
is the
monitored
numerous
boreholes
that
are
checked
for
water
levels
and
water
quality
the
landfill
is
to control the effectiveness of the environmental protection measures and thus
monitored to control the effectiveness of the environmental protection measures and
prevent spreading of contaminants.
thus prevent spreading of contaminants.
The landfill was constructed in compartments of 2 to 6 ha according to the need. The
The landfill was constructed in compartments of 2 to 6 ha according to the need. The
last
compartment
in 1997.
1997.All
Allcompartments
compartments
have
a bottom
liner.
last
compartmentwas
was constructed
constructed in
have
a bottom
liner.
Apart
Apart
from
that
the
geohydrological
control
system
gives
an
extra
protection.
The
from that the geohydrological control system gives an extra protection. The water
level
water
level
in the compartments
by controlled
discharge
at a lower
in the
compartments
by controlled
discharge
is kept isatkept
a lower
levellevel
thanthan
the
the
groundwater
level
(see
Figure
1.).
In
case
the
bottom
liner
should
fail
leachate
is
groundwater level (see Figure 1.). In case the bottom liner should fail leachate is not
not
leaking
instead
groundwater
will into
flowthe
into
the compartment.
will
leaking
outout
butbut
instead
groundwater
will flow
compartment.
This willThis
immediately
immediately
noticed
the of
amounts
of leachate
each compartment
are
be noticed be
since
the since
amounts
leachate
from eachfrom
compartment
are measured
separately.
measured
separately.
Theactual
actualcosts
costsofoflandfill
landfilloperation
operation can
can change
input.
The
The
changewith
withchanging
changingyearly
yearlywaste
waste
input.
average
operational
costscosts
of theofNauerna
landfilllandfill
are given
Tablein1.Table 1.
The
average
operational
the Nauerna
areingiven
Table 1: Operational costs Nauerna landfill
Aspect
Depreciation and interest
Waste acceptance and disposal
Administration and overhead
Site maintenance
Waste water treatment and landfill gas extraction/utilization
Site inspection and monitoring
Capping fund
Aftercare fund
Total
Euro per tonne
4.30
1.90
1.10
0.30
0.30
0.10
3.50
2.20
13.70
The
Thecapping
cappingfund
fundallows
allowsfor
forinvestment
investmentinincapping
cappingthe
thewaste
waste with
with aadouble
double top
topliner
liner
severalyears
yearsafter
afterending
endinglandfill
landfillactivities.
activities.The
Theaftercare
aftercarefund
fundthrough
throughinvestments
investments
several
shouldgenerate
generateenough
enoughmoney
money to
to allow
allow itit to
togrow
grow during
during landfill
landfill operation
operation and
should
and to
to be
be
able
to
finance
aftercare
for
an
unlimited
period
of
time.
The
gate
fee
at
all
Afvalzorg
able to finance aftercare for an unlimited period of time. The gate fee at all Afvalzorg
landfillsis is3636
Euro.
This
allows
Afvalzorgto to
operateother
otherlandfills
landfillsthat
thathave
havehigher
higher
landfills
Euro.
This
allows
Afvalzorg
operate
operational
cost
and
thus
help
society
to
overcome
problems
with
old
landfills
as
operational cost and thus help society to overcome problems with old landfills shown
as
in Case 3.
shown
in Case 3.
CASE 2: VELSEN LANDFILL
CASE 2: VELSEN LANDFILL
The Velsen landfill was the first geohydrologically controlled sanitary landfill in the region.
The
Velsen
landfill
the firstingeohydrologically
controlled
sanitary
in the
It was
opened
bywas
Afvalzorg
1977 and was operated
until
1993. landfill
Monitoring
and
region.
It
was
opened
by
Afvalzorg
in
1977
and
was
operated
until
1993.
Monitoring
aftercare are carried out continuously and will be in the future. In total 4.5 million m! of
and
aftercare
are carried were
out continuously
andfirst
willpart
be inofthe
totalconstructed
4.5 million
waste
after compaction
landfilled. The
thefuture.
landfillInwas
m3
of
waste
after
compaction
were
landfilled.
The
first
part
of
the
landfill
was
without bottom liner as was standard practice in the 1970’s. Later parts of the landfill do
have a bottom
liner.bottom
For thisliner
paper
part without
bottom
liner1970’s.
will be discussed.
constructed
without
asonly
wasthe
standard
practice
in the
Later parts
of the landfill do have a bottom liner. For this paper only the part without bottom liner
The site for the Velsen landfill was selected with great care and especially with respect
to geohydrology. Leachate control and discharge are obtained by controlling water
levels under and around the landfill. Around the landfill at a proper depth a drainage
willsystem
be discussed.
TheAround
site forthe
thedrainage
Velsen landfill
selected
with great
and a
is installed.
system was
a ditch
was installed.
In care
this ditch
relativelywith
highrespect
water level
is maintained Leachate
with respect
to theand
lower
water levels
of the
especially
to geohydrology.
control
discharge
are obtained
polderslevels
(see figure
by surrounding
controlling water
under2.)
and around the landfill. Around the landfill at a
proper depth a drainage system is installed. Around the drainage system a ditch was
installed. In this ditch a relatively high water level is maintained with respect to the
lower water levels of the surrounding polders (see figure 2.)
clay
clay
aquifer
aquifer
hydrostatic pressure shallow groundwater
hydrostatic pressure deep groundwater
direction of waterflow
drain
Figure 2: Geohydrological situation Velsen landfill.
Figure 2: Geohydrological situation Velsen landfill.
By pumping water from the drainage system under and around the landfill the water
By pumping
water
from
drainage
system
underground
and around
the water
pressure
is lower
than
thethe
pressure
form
the deep
water the
andlandfill
from the
pressure
is
lower
than
the
pressure
form
the
deep
ground
water
and
from the
surrounding ditch. In this way the prevailing water flow is directed towards the
surrounding
ditch.
In
this
way
the
prevailing
water
flow
is
directed
towards
the
drainage system and all the leachate is caught. Since the landfill is situateddrainage
in clay
system and all the leachate is caught. Since the landfill is situated in clay the water
thevelocity
water velocity
is very low, which means that relatively little groundwater is mixed
is very low, which means that relatively little groundwater is mixed with the
with
the
leachate
and
transported
to a nearby
communal
works
for
leachate and transported
to a nearby
communal
sewagesewage
works for
treatment.
The
treatment.
of also
the water
flow
also prevents
spreadinginto
of the
contamination
direction The
of thedirection
water flow
prevents
spreading
of contamination
surrounding
intogroundwater.
the sur rounding
groundwater.
Theisgroundwater
quality isinmonitored
The groundwater
quality
monitored periodically
boreholes periodically
around the
in boreholes
around
than 20have
years
monitoring
haveindication
not resulted
landfill. More
than the
20 landfill.
years ofMore
monitoring
notof resulted
in any
that
contaminants
spreading.
in any
indicationare
that
contaminants are spreading.
Acceptanceprocedures
proceduresand
andwaste
wastedisposal
disposalmethods
methods were
were very
very similar
similar to
to the
the ones
ones
Acceptance
described
for
the
Nauerna
landfill.
The
Velsen
landfill
is
capped
with
a
1
m
thick
layer
of
described for the Nauerna landfill. The Velsen landfill is capped with a 1 m thick layer
clay soil.
soil. It
It is
is standard
standard Afvalzorg
Afvalzorg policy
a useful
useful destination
destination for
of clay
policy to
to find
find a
for landfill
landfill after
after
operation.
The
Velsen
landfill
is
now
a
recreation
area.
It
is
covered
with
rich
vegetation
operation. The Velsen landfill is now a recreation area. It is covered with rich
housing a lot of wild-life. There are facilities for horse-riding and open air concerts.
vegetation housing a lot of wild-life. There are facilities for horse-riding and open air
Mountaineers can practice their skills on a special wall. There are tracks and paths to
concerts.
Mountaineers
canand
practice
their
on anot
special
wall.are
There
are tracks
walk, cycle,
mountain bike
skeeler.
Andskills
last but
least there
ski-slopes
and a
and
paths
to
walk,
cycle,
mountain
bike
and
skeeler.
And
last
but
not
least
therecost
are
restaurant. Recalculated to present day price levels an indication of the operational
ski-slopes
andlike
a restaurant.
Recalculated
for a landfill
Velsen is presented
in tableto2.present day price levels an indication of
theInoperational
costgate
for afee
landfill
Velsen
is presented
in table
2. the cost level for
the 1980’s the
was 5like
Euro
per tonne.
The difference
with
In the Nauerna
1980’s the
gateisfee
was caused
5 Euro by
perthe
tonne.
difference
cost level
landfill
mainly
lowerThe
investment
cost,with
i.e. the
no bottom
linerfor
a muchlandfill
cheaper
capping.
Since periodic
repairinvestment
and replacement
of top
(the
theand
Nauerna
is mainly
caused
by the lower
cost, i.e.
no liners
bottom
lifetime
hdpe cheaper
liners is estimated
at 50 years)
makes
a major
part of the
cost of
liner
and aofmuch
capping. Since
periodic
repairupand
replacement
of top
aftercare
(Ritsema,
1999),liners
the aftercare
fund for
Velsen makes
landfill can
a lot part
smaller
liners
(the lifetime
of hdpe
is estimated
at the
50 years)
up abemajor
of
than
the
aftercare
fund
for
the
Nauerna
landfill.
And
thus
the
reservation
per
tonne
for be
the cost of aftercare (Ritsema, 1999), the aftercare fund for the Velsen landfill can
a lot smaller than the aftercare fund for the Nauerna landfill. And thus the reservation
per tonne for aftercare is also considerably smaller than for the Nauerna landfill. The
geohydrological isolation requires a larger volume of waste water to be treated.
Especially when compared to landfills that are capped with a double impermeable
liner. But the costs for the extra waste water treatment are at least 10 times smaller
Table 2: Indication of operational costs Velsen landfill
Aspect
Depreciation and interest
Waste acceptance and disposal
Administration and overhead
Site maintenance
Waste water treatment and landfill gas extraction/utilization
Site inspection and monitoring
Capping fund
Aftercare fund
Total
Euro per tonne
0.70
1.80
1.10
0.30
0.40
0.10
1.30
1.10
6.80
aftercare is also considerably smaller than for the Nauerna landfill. The geohydrological
than the costs for periodic replacement of the top liner.
isolation requires a larger volume of waste water to be treated. Especially when
Finally
it should
be noted
technical
measures
geohydrological
isolation
in for
compared
to landfills
thatthat
are capped
with
a double for
impermeable
liner. But
the costs
most
cases
can
be
installed
at
the
perimeter
of
the
landfill.
This
means
that
they
are
the extra waste water treatment are at least 10 times smaller than the costs for periodic
suitable
to retrofit
ontop
existing
replacement
of the
liner. landfills. Thus the environmental impact of former and
existing
landfills
can
be
greatly
reduced.measures
Financingforofgeohydrological
such measuresisolation
is oftenin most
Finally it should be noted
that technical
possible
by continuing
the of
landfill
operation
establishing
a small
cases can
be installedoratextending
the perimeter
the landfill.
This and
means
that they are
suitable
gate
Anon
example
this principle
withenvironmental
very extensive
isolation
measures
is given
to fee.
retrofit
existingoflandfills.
Thus the
impact
of former
and existing
landfills
can
be
greatly
reduced.
Financing
of
such
measures
is
often
possible
by
in Case 3.
continuing or extending the landfill operation and establishing a small gate fee. An
example
of this principle with
very extensive isolation measures is given in Case 3.
CASE
3: SCHOTEROOG
LANDFILL
CASE 3: SCHOTEROOG LANDFILL
The
Schoteroog landfill site is situated near the city of Haarlem and encompasses 24
ha of former marshy meadowland. The landfill was constructed in 1971 by the
The Schoteroog landfill site is situated near the city of Haarlem and encompasses 24 ha of
community
of Haarlem.
Part ofThe
thelandfill
topsoilwas
wasconstructed
removed prior
to landfilling
but no of
former marshy
meadowland.
in 1971
by the community
bottom
linerPart
wasofinstalled.
To was
prevent
contamination
of soil and
a was
Haarlem.
the topsoil
removed
prior to landfilling
but groundwater
no bottom liner
drainage
system
for
collection
of
leachate
was
installed.
Leachate
was
collected
installed. To prevent contamination of soil and groundwater a drainage system infora
ditch
and pumped
to a was
nearby
communal
waste
treatment
plant.
collection
of leachate
installed.
Leachate
waswater
collected
in a ditch
andMonitoring
pumped to a
and
maintenance
very
poor.
In later plant.
yearsMonitoring
very little and
evidence
of the collection
nearby
communalwere
waste
water
treatment
maintenance
were very
poor. In existence
later years could
very little
of the collection
system’s
could
bewaste
found.
system’s
be evidence
found. Between
1973 and
1977 existence
1.5 million
m3 of
Between
1973
1977 1.5 million
m3 of
waste
was household
disposed of waste
at Schoteroog.
Initially
was
disposed
of and
at Schoteroog.
Initially
only
coarse
was landfilled,
coarse
was landfilled,
but from
onwards
household
waste
butonly
from
1974household
onwards waste
household
waste was
also 1974
included,
as much
as 50%
of was
the
also
included,
as
much
as
50%
of
the
total
input.
Furthermore
waste
water
treatment
total input. Furthermore waste water treatment sludge and industrial waste
sludge andclay
industrial
wasteresidues)
(absorbent
claylandfilled.
and paint residues)
were
landfilled.over
The15.3
wasteha
(absorbent
and paint
were
The waste
extended
extended over 15.3 ha with an average thickness of 4.5 m. The Schoteroog landfill was
with an average thickness of 4.5 m. The Schoteroog landfill was closed in 1977 when
closed in 1977 when the Velsen landfill site was opened. Surveys showed that the
the Velsen landfill site was opened. Surveys showed that the groundwater was
groundwater was seriously contaminated. The most important contaminants were
seriously
contaminated.
The most
contaminants
were benzene,
benzene,
monochlorobenzene
and important
PAH's. Comparison
with national
standards and laws
monochlorobenzene
and
PAH's.
Comparison
with
national
indicated that remediation was required. The same year a planstandards
was drawnand
up laws
to prevent
indicated
thatofremediation
required.
The same
year asystem
plan was
to
spreading
pollution by was
installing
a perimeter
drainage
anddrawn
a clayup
capping.
prevent
spreading
by installing
drainage
system
and a clay
However
financingofofpollution
these measures
was aa perimeter
problem. The
community
of Haarlem,
the
capping.
However
financing
of these
a problem.
The community
of
owner of
the Schoteroog
landfill,
wasmeasures
not able towas
allocate
the necessary
budget, while
funding the
by the
Provincial
National Authorities
could
notable
be to
expected
before
the year
Haarlem,
owner
of the or
Schoteroog
landfill, was
not
allocate
the necessary
2010. while funding by the Provincial or National Authorities could not be expected
budget,
In 1992
made a proposal for the remediation of the Schoteroog landfill (Scharff,
before
theAfvalzorg
year 2010.
1997).
The
proposal
realization
of environmental
measures,
In 1992 Afvalzorg madeincluded
a proposal
for the remediation
of theprotection
Schoteroog
landfill reopening1997).
of the landfill
and financing
the remediation
of the landfill
fee. Afvalzorg
(Scharff,
The proposal
included
realization by
of means
environmental
protection
has the organisational structure to finance protective measures, to create aftercare funds
measures, re- opening of the landfill and financing the remediation by means of the
and to carry out aftercare. In consultation with the Local and Provincial Authorities it was
landfill
fee. Afvalzorg has the organisational structure to finance protective measures,
decided that Afvalzorg would initiate and realize the Schoteroog project, would process the
to create aftercare funds and to carry out aftercare. In consultation with the Local and
Provincial Authorities it was decided that Afvalzorg would initiate and realize the
Schoteroog project, would process the waste, would create an aftercare fund and will
carry
out aftercare
in the
revealed
that
vertical cut-off
wall inStudies
waste,
would create
an future.
aftercareStudies
fund and
will carry
outaaftercare
in the future.
combination
with
deep
wells
to
reduce
the
water
level
within
the
cut-off
wall
would
revealed that a vertical cut-off wall in combination with deep wells to reduce the
water
levelbe
thewaste,
best remediation
scheme
combines
the
highest
of
within
the
cut-off
wallmethod.
would
beThis
thefund
bestand
remediation
This scheme
combines
the
would
create
an
aftercare
will
carrymethod.
out
aftercare
inlevel
the future.
Studies
geohydrological
isolation
with
minimizing
removal
of
water
to
maintain
water
levels.
highest level
geohydrological
with minimizing
of water
maintain
revealed
that aofvertical
cut-off wallisolation
in combination
with deep removal
wells to reduce
thetowater
level
Moreover
it requires
which is important
in
view
ofinthe
fact
that,
water levels.
Moreover
it maintenance,
requires
maintenance,
which
is important
view
of the
fact
within
the
cut-off
walllittle
would
be thelittle
best
remediation
method.
This
scheme
combines
the
that,
after
capping
the
landfill,
the
area
will
be
prepared
for
intensive
recreation.
In
1995
after
capping
the
landfill,
the
area
will
be
prepared
for
intensive
recreation.
In
1995
highest level of geohydrological isolation with minimizing removal of water to maintain
and
1996
2,550
cut-off
wall with
withlittle
an maintenance,
average
ofof
1212
and
21 21
deep-wells
an
andwater
1996
2,550
mmcut-off
wall
an
averagedepth
depth
m
and
with
levels.
Moreover
it requires
which
ismimportant
indeep-wells
view of with
the fact
average
depth
of
7.5
m
were
installed.
The
deep-wells
were
connected
by
after depth
capping
theinstalled.
area will The
be prepared
for intensive
recreation.
an that,
average
ofthe
7.5landfill,
m were
deep-wells
were connected
byIn 1995
discharge
pipes
to
a
pumping-station.
The
pumping-station
transports
the
mixture
of
and
1996
2,550
m
cut-off
wall
with
an
average
depth
of
12
m
and
21
deep-wells
with an
discharge pipes to a pumping-station. The pumping-station transports the mixture
of
leachate
and
groundwater
to
a
nearby
communal
waste
water
treatment
plant.
Reduction
average
depth
of
7.5
m
were
installed.
The
deep-wells
were
connected
by
leachate and groundwater to a nearby communal waste water treatment plant.
of the water
leveltowithin
the cut-off wall results
in an inward andtransports
upward water
flow (see
discharge
a level
pumping-station.
The pumping-station
Reduction
ofpipes
the water
within the cut-off
wall results in an
inward the
andmixture
upwardof
Figure
3).
This
prevents
leakage
of
contaminants
into
the
underlying
aquifer.
leachate
and groundwater
to a prevents
nearby communal
water treatment
Reduction
water
flow (see
Figure 3). This
leakagewaste
of contaminants
intoplant.
the underlying
of the water level within the cut-off wall results in an inward and upward water flow (see
aquifer.
Figure 3). This prevents leakage of contaminants into the underlying aquifer.
landfill
peat
landfill
peat
deep-well
cutt-off wall
deep-well
cutt-off wall
sand
sand
clay
aquifer
clay
hydrostatic pressure shallow groundwater
hydrostatic pressure deep groundwater
direction of waterflow
hydrostatic pressure shallow groundwater
hydrostatic pressure deep groundwater
Geohydrological
situation
after remediation of Schoteroog
direction
of waterflow
aquifer
Figure 3:
landfill.
Figure 3: Geohydrological situation after remediation of Schoteroog landfill.
By By
March
and
April 1996 the
restofofthe
therequired
required
infrastructure
was installed. This
March
and April 1996
the rest
infrastructure
Figure
3: Geohydrological
situation
after remediation
of Schoteroog
landfill. was installed. This included
included
fences,
gate,
asphalt
roads,
shed,
weighbridge,
computer
system,
office and
fences, gate, asphalt roads, shed, weighbridge, computer system, office
and personnel
personnel
The
landfill
was
re-opened
frominstalled.
By
Marchquarters.
and April
1996Schoteroog
thelandfill
rest ofwas
the
required
infrastructure
was
Thisto
included
quarters.
The
Schoteroog
re-opened
from May 1996
toMay
April1996
1998.
InApril
this
3
1998.
In
this
period
450.000
m
3
of
waste
were
landfilled.
To
allow
for
settlement
fences,
gate, asphalt
weighbridge,
computer
system, office
and personnel
period 450.000
m ofroads,
waste shed,
were landfilled.
To allow
for settlement
the capping
will the
be
capping
willinThe
be
installed
in 2002.
The
overall
costfrom
of landfill
the
Schoteroog
landfill
is 34.90
quarters.
Schoteroog
landfill
was
re-opened
May
1996
to Euro
April
1998.
In this
installed
2002.
The
overall
cost
of
the
Schoteroog
is
34.90
per
tonne
of
3
period
450.000
waste
were landfilled.
To
allowAfvalzorg
for
settlement
willisbe
Euro
per (see
tonne
of m
waste
(see
Table
3). By
spreading
cost
andisincome
Afvalzorg
waste
Table
3).ofBy
spreading
cost
and
income
ablethe
to capping
use
a uniform
installed
inaon
2002.
The
overall
cost
ofallthe
Schoteroog
landfill
is 34.90
Euro
tonne as
of
able
to use
uniform
landfill
on
landfill
sites.
This
ensures
that
the
waste
landfill
fee
all landfill
sites. fee
This
ensures
that the
waste
transport
distance
isper
as
small
waste
(see
Table
3).
By
spreading
cost
and
income
Afvalzorg
is
able
to
use
a
uniform
possibledistance
becauseis
it is
influenced
by differences
in gate
fee. influenced by differences
transport
asnot
small
as possible
because
it is not
landfillfee.
fee on all landfill sites. This ensures that the waste transport distance is as small as
in gate
Table 3: Operational
Schoteroog
landfill
possible
because itcosts
is not
influenced
by differences in gate fee.
Aspect
Depreciation
and interest
Table
3: Operational
costs Schoteroog landfill
Waste acceptance and disposal
Aspect
Administrationand
and
overhead
Depreciation
interest
Site maintenance
Waste
acceptance and disposal
Waste water treatment
and landfill gas extraction/utilization
Administration
and overhead
Site maintenance
inspection and monitoring
Site
Capping
fundtreatment and landfill gas extraction/utilization
Waste
water
Aftercare
fund and monitoring
Site
inspection
Total
Capping
fund
Aftercare fund
Total
Euro per tonne
8.90
2.80
Euro per tonne
1.10
8.90
0.70
2.80
0.40
1.10
0.20
0.70
12.80
0.40
8.00
0.20
34.90
12.80
8.00
34.90
Since groundwater around the landfill site was already contaminated, groundwater
monitoring will focus not on standards for natural groundwater but on deterioration of
the present situation. This is not an easy task because around the landfill industrial
activity has also caused groundwater contamination. Follow-up actions to monitoring
data require careful analysis of parameters specific for landfills and consideration of
geochemical processes. Three years of monitoring Schoteroog landfill have revealed
fluctuations in parameter concentrations. So far the data indicate that a stable
situation has been reached that puts an end to contamination of the aquifer.
A similar approach can be used for many former or existing landfills. However in
some cases re-opening a landfill is not possible. This makes it extremely difficult to
finance remediation measures. An example of remediation without re-opening is
Case 4.
CASE 4: ILPERVELD
In pre-historic times the Ilperveld and similar regions were bogs that had developed
in lagoons behind dunes that protected them from the sea. In later days human
settlements dug for peat and thus created a landscape with lots of water in between
meadows with very high water tables. Until several decades ago the area was mainly
used for cattle farming. From the 1960’s onwards this was gradually abandoned
because all transport had to be carried out with boats. Due to its inefficiency cattle
farming could no longer compete with other regions. Already several decades earlier
the area was considered useless land and therefore suitable to landfill waste from
neighbouring industries, villages and cities. This was stopped around 1980 when
sanitary landfills were opened that provided a better environmental alternative for
waste disposal. At the moment the Ilperveld is a 600 ha nature reserve where
ecological and cultural heritage is preserved. In this nature reserve at least 30 small
sites with waste deposits and 6 larger landfill sites are present. At the time the large
sites operated with a permit. The smaller sites received material that was generally
considered construction material rather than construction and demolition waste. Due
to a lack of supervision and enforcement many sites received hazardous materials.
The waste was transported in barges. Eye-witnesses have declared that when the
shore for unloading was occupied by other barges also the opposite shores were
used. At many occasions waste was spilled and fell in the water.
Recent surveys have indicated that close to the landfills sludge on the bottom of the
waterways is contaminated to such extent that regulations require that when dredged
it is transported to special treatment facilities or sanitary landfills. The foundation that
manages the nature reserve has no funds for either the treatment of the sludge or
remediation of the landfills. Therefore sludge accumulates in the waterways. This not
only hinders recreational activities on the water, but also reduces visibility in the
water which has many effects on the water ecology.
When at distance from living areas the risk of contact of people with contaminated
material is small. There are adverse effects to nature but in priority ranking of the
national government the effects are not urgent and do not require measures on short
notice. This means that at least until 2008 no government budgets will be made
available for remediation of the landfills in the Ilperveld.
Afvalzorg has drawn up a plan to combine dredging of sludges and remediation of
the landfill sites. The philosophy of the plan is that the contamination of the sludge is
caused by leaching of the landfills or spilling of waste. The landfills have operated
with a permit according to standards that were acceptable at the time. Therefore no
contamination of the sludge should have been confined to the landfill sites. Contrary to
present government policy Afvalzorg has proposed to deposit the contaminated sludges
the landfill
sites.
Furthermore
it was
proposed
landfill
sitesproblem
and
legal on
directions
can
require
removal
of the
waste.toIf remove
seen assmaller
an area
related
deposit
the
waste
on
the
larger
sites.
And
finally
Afvalzorg
proposed
to
cap
the
waste
the contamination of the sludge should have been confined to the landfill sites.
with non-contaminated sludges form the area (see Figure 4).
Contrary to present government policy Afvalzorg has proposed to deposit the
contaminated sludges on the landfill sites. Furthermore it was proposed to remove
smaller landfill sites and deposit the waste on the larger sites. And finally Afvalzorg
proposed to cap the waste with non-contaminated sludges form the area ( Figure 4).
present
future
peat
clay
aquifer
shallow groundwater
deep groundwater
direction of waterflow
landfill
replaced landfill
clean dredgeing sludge
Figure 4. Geohydrological situation before and after remediation of the Ilperveld landfills.
Figure 4. Geohydrological situation before and after remediation of the Ilperveld landfills.
The effect
should
be be
thatthat
in in
the
waterwaysare
arecleaned
cleaned
water
The effect
should
thefirst
firstplace
place the
the waterways
andand
the the
water
ecology
could
restore
itself.
Secondly
the
production
of
leachate
is
reduced
by
ecology could restore itself. Secondly the production of leachate is reduced by reducing
the total
of contaminated
material and
reshaping
the sites to promote
reducing
the surface
total surface
of contaminated
material
and reshaping
the sitesrun-off
to
instead
of percolation.
leachate Some
production
is considered
to beisacceptable.
The
promote
run-off
instead ofSome
percolation.
leachate
production
considered
to be
situation
of
infiltration
can
not
be
reversed
by
geohydrological
measures.
When
low
acceptable. The situation of infiltration can not be reversed by geohydrological
groundwater levels are realized in peaty soil, the peat will oxidise and disappear
measures.
When low groundwater levels are realized in peaty soil, the peat will
gradually. For reasons of conserving cultural heritage this is not acceptable. The
oxidise
and disappear gradually. For reasons of conserving cultural heritage this is
infiltration is however very small because the low permeability of the underlying clay
not acceptable.
however very
small
because
the low
induces low The
waterinfiltration
velocities. is
Furthermore
surveys
at various
landfills
havepermeability
shown that of
the underlying
clay
induces
lowin water
velocities.
Furthermore
surveys
at various
contaminants
hardly
spread
peaty soil.
This is attributed
to sorption
of contaminants
landfills
shown
that contaminants
in peaty soil.
is attributed
andhave
to natural
processes
of degradationhardly
calledspread
natural attenuation.
At This
the moment
a
major
research
programme
is
carried
out
in
the
Netherlands
at
150
former
landfill
sites
to sorption of contaminants and to natural processes of degradation called natural
to gatherAt
more
natural
attenuation
processes.
attenuation.
the information
moment aon
major
research
programme
is carried out in the
The
competent
authorities
welcomed
the
initiative,
but wanted
confirmation
of the
Netherlands at 150 former landfill sites to gather more
information
on natural
expected
effects. Therefore in February 1998 a pilot project was started on a 2 ha
attenuation
processes.
landfill site. Sludge was deposited on this site and several monitoring systems were
The competent
authorities
the initiative,
butand
wanted
confirmation
the
installed to determine
thewelcomed
effects on soil,
groundwater
surface
water quality.ofOne
expected
effects.
Therefore
February
1998 aany
pilot
project
was started
on aare
2 ha
and half
year of
monitoringinhave
not indicated
adverse
effects.
The results
landfill
site.
Sludge
was
deposited
on
this
site
and
several
monitoring
systems
were
preliminary and monitoring will continue. Nevertheless because of the positive results
so
installed
to determine
the effects
soil, groundwater
and
surface
water remediation
quality. One
far there
is an agreement
to starton
preparations
of the first
phase
of full-scale
of the
Ilperveld
landfills. have not indicated any adverse effects. The results are
and half
year
of monitoring
It
is
estimated
that
40,000will
m!continue.
of contaminated
sludge and
140,000ofm!the
of waste
need
preliminary and monitoring
Nevertheless
because
positive
results
attention
in
the
Ilperveld
area.
Based
on
the
pilot
project
the
cost
for
remediation
was
so far there is an agreement to start preparations of the first phase of full-scale
estimated
4.6Ilperveld
million Euros
(see Table 4). The costs for total removal if contaminated
remediation
ofatthe
landfills.
sludge and waste and disposal at a sanitary landfill would be at least three times higher.
It is estimated that 40,000 m3 of contaminated sludge and 140,000 m3 of waste need
attention in the Ilperveld area. Based on the pilot project the cost for remediation was
estimated at 4.6 million Euros (see Table 4). The costs for total removal if
contaminated sludge and waste and disposal at a sanitary landfill would be at least
three times higher.
Table 4: Remediation costs Ilperveld landfills (based on 40 ha finished surface).
Aspect
Replacement of waste
Disposal of contaminated sludge
Covering with clean sludge
Landscaping and seeding
Project management
Total
Euro
2,545,000
273,000
491,000
1,023,000
289,000
4,621,000
DISCUSSION
AND CONCLUSION
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
In the Netherlands the change from uncontrolled waste tips in more than 1,000
In the Netherlands the change from uncontrolled waste tips in more than 1,000
communities
to sanitary landfills required investments the individual communities
communities to sanitary landfills required investments the individual communities could
could
not
supply.
The
communities
hadtotostart
start regional
regional cooperation.
cooperation. In
In the
not supply. The
communities
had
the 1980’s
1980’s
approximately
80
corporations
operated
landfill
sites.
More
stringent
legal
approximately 80 corporations operated landfill sites. More stringent legal requirements
requirements
for double
capping
double
top treatment,
liners, leachate
for double bottom
liners,bottom
cappingliners,
with double
topwith
liners,
leachate
landfill gas
extractionlandfill
and utilization,
groundwater
monitoringgroundwater
and arrangements
for aftercare
treatment,
gas extraction
and utilization,
monitoring
and have
caused manyfor
regional
corporations
to reconsider
their landfill
operation. to
At reconsider
the moment
arrangements
aftercare
have caused
many regional
corporations
only
20 corporations
arethe
operating
are mainly
their
landfill
operation. At
momentlandfills.
only 20These
corporations
are privatised
operating companies
landfills.
owned
by
national,
provincial
or
regional
authorities.
The
number
will
probably
decrease
These are mainly privatised companies owned by national, provincial or regional
until
6
to
10
companies
remain.
It
can
therefore
be
expected
that
for
Romanian
authorities. The number will probably decrease until 6 to 10 companies remain. It can
communities without regional cooperation it will be difficult, not to say impossible, to
therefore be expected that for Romanian communities without regional cooperation it
start landfills according to ecological standards overnight. The World Bank (Rushbrook,
will1999)
be difficult,
to say impossible,
to start landfills
according
to ecological
stronglynotadvises
to include intermediate
stages
in the transition
from open
standards
overnight.
The
World
Bank
(Rushbrook,
1999)
strongly
advises to include
dumping to sanitary landfilling:
intermediate
stages
in thei.e.
transition
from open site,
dumping
to no
sanitary
• designated
dumping:
within a designated
but with
controllandfilling:
of operations;
 •designated
dumping:
i.e.
within
a
designated
site,
but
with
no
controlinoflayers
operations;
controlled tipping: i.e. in a supervised site, with organised disposal
and
 controlled
in awaste;
supervised site, with organised disposal in layers and
periodic tipping:
coveringi.e.
of the
covering
of the i.e.
waste;
•periodic
engineered
landfilling:
where the impact of waste on the environment has been
assessed landfilling:
and engineering
measures
have been
taken to
impacts. has been
 engineered
i.e. where
the impact
of waste
onlimit
thesuch
environment
Having
gone
through
these stages
the step
towards
sanitary
minimizing
assessed
and
engineering
measures
have
been taken
tolandfilling
limit suchand
impacts.
environmental
impacts
is
feasible.
Having gone through these stages the step towards sanitary landfilling and
Realizing environmental
new landfills does
not change
the problems
caused
by present
and
minimizing
impacts
is feasible.
Realizing
new landfills
does
notformer
landfills. Continuing waste disposal at present landfills and implementing gate fees and
change the problems caused by present and former landfills. Continuing waste
better landfill management provides the opportunity to counteract the negative impact of
disposal
at present landfills and implementing gate fees and better landfill
existing landfills. It is possible to retrofit simple environmental control measures. Thus
management
provides
the opportunity
to counteract
the negative
impactgradually
of existing
the public could
be shown
that improvements
are realized.
They could
be
landfills.
It isthat
possible
to retrofit
environmental
controldisposal.
measures.
Thus
the
convinced
it is important
to simple
spent money
on proper waste
When
the public
public
couldgets
be shown
improvements
realized.
They could
gradually
betime
gradually
used tothat
increased
costs forare
sanitary
landfilling,
while in
the mean
convinced
it is important
to spent
money
proper
waste disposal.
When
the
economicthat
development
continues,
in time
theon
basis
for higher
expenditure
on waste
management
grow.
public
graduallywill
gets
used to increased costs for sanitary landfilling, while in the
The time
paper
has shown
that with appropriate
improvements
are reached.
In
mean
economic
development
continues,measures
in time the
basis for higher
expenditure
existing
undesired
conditions
at
least
something
is
achieved.
Whereas
otherwise
the
on waste management will grow.
uncontrolled
of the
surrounding
area would
have continued.
Also in aIn
The
paper has contamination
shown that with
appropriate
measures
improvements
are reached.
developed
countryconditions
like the Netherlands
sometimes
suboptimalWhereas
solutions otherwise
are the only
existing
undesired
at least something
is achieved.
the
ones feasible. Appropriate site specific measures in combination with natural
uncontrolled
contamination
of
the
surrounding
area
would
have
continued.
Also
in
a
attenuation processes can reduce the negative environmental effects of landfills to a
developed
country
like the
Netherlands
sometimes suboptimal solutions are the only
great extent
at relatively
low
costs.
ones
feasible.
Appropriate
site
specific
measures
combination
withhighest
naturalpriority
The approach followed in the Netherlands reflectsin the
idea that the
attenuation
can and
reduce
theEnvironmental
negative environmental
effects
of landfills
to a
should be processes
given to health
safety.
protection comes
second.
In order
great
extent at
relatively
low costs.
to improve
health
and safety
hygiene is most important. Hygiene is served by avoiding
The approach followed in the Netherlands reflects the idea that the highest priority
should be given to health and safety. Environmental protection comes second. In
order to improve health and safety hygiene is most important. Hygiene is served by
avoiding human contact with waste. This requires most of all efficient collection
services. Secondly minimizing the number of people present on the landfill and
proper processing of waste on the landfill are important. Proper landfill management
can be implemented at relative low cost even on landfills with very little
environmental protection measures. When larger budgets become available
environmental protection measures can be improved. Allocation of available budgets
should always be accompanied by a proper weighing of priorities.
In conclusion it is suggested to Romanian landfill owners to start with spending a
fraction of the money required for west-European standards and achieve a lot of
improvements. Then it would be possible to gradually move on while in the mean
time public acceptance of increased gate fees, environmental awareness and also
the purchasing power of the population has grown.
REFERENCES
Chiriac, M., Cirlan, C. (1999) Environmental Effects of Improper MSW Landfilling: A
Romanian Experience, Proceedings Sardinia’99, Seventh International Waste
management and Landfill Symposium, 4-8 October 1999, CISA Publisher, Caglairi,
Italy, Vol.III, 665-672.
Macfarlane, C.J. (1996) Municipal Solid Waste Management in Lower and Middle
Income Countries. WHO European Region Report, EUR/ICP/TECH 02 02 01. World
Health Organization Regional Office for Europe, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Pugh, M. (1999) The path to affordable landfills. Wastes Management. October 1999.
IWM Business Services Ltd., Northampton, United Kingdom.
Ritsema, H., Scharff, H., Roozen, R. (1999) Legal and financial aspects of the
aftercare of landfill sites in the Netherlands, Proceedings Sardinia’99, Seventh
International Waste management and Landfill Symposium, 4-8 October 1999, CISA
Publisher, Caglairi, Italy, Vol.V, 363-368.
Rushbrook, P., Pugh, M., (1999) Solid Waste Landfills in Middle and Lower Income
Countries: a Technical Guide to Planning, Design and Operation. World Bank
Technical Paper No. 426.
Scharff, H., Sollman, C. (1997) Landfill remediation made possible by re-opening a
former waste tip, Proceedings Sardinia’97, Sixth International Landfill Symposium,
13- 17 October 1997, CISA Publisher, Caglairi, Italy, Vol.IV, 509-516.