See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/254387690

Control Measures for Old Landfills and Waste Dumps

Conference Paper · January 2003

CITATIONS READS
0 155

2 authors, including:

Manoj Datta
Indian Institute of Technology Delhi
169 PUBLICATIONS   410 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Landfill Mining: Feasibility of reuse of soil-like materials from dumpsites View project

Closure of Old Waste Dumps in India View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Manoj Datta on 21 May 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Workshop on Sustainable Landfill Management
3–5 December, 2003; Chennai, India, pp. 273-280

Control Measures for Old Landfills and Waste Dumps

Manoj Datta and Anirban Sengupta

Department of Civil Engineering, I.I.T. Delhi, New Delhi – 110016

ABSTRACT
Control and remedial measures are required to contain the contamination of subsoil and ground water
beneath old landfills and dumps of municipal and industrial solid wastes, which have no leachate
barrier at their bases. Control measures include provision of proper cover over each site along with
surface water drainage system and also vertical barriers (cut-offs), wherever necessary. This paper
presents a summary of the types of cover systems and vertical cut-offs, which can be considered for
remedial measures in different rainfall and sub-soil conditions found in India.

1. INTRODUCTION

Prior to the development of proper engineering techniques for construction of landfills, wastes of different
types were disposed of in open land or in natural depressions. The landfills, constructed in this manner,
did not have any leachate management system. Liquids that enter into such landfills mix with breakdown
products of waste to form leachate. This leachate is augmented by rainfall water that infiltrates into the
waste and goes down to the subsoil through the bottom of the landfills (Figure1). Thus old landfills
exhibit high potential for contamination of ground water beneath their base. This contamination of ground
water can be prevented by adopting suitable control and remedial measures.

Remedial measures are applied to old landfills where ground water pollution is detected. The source of
contamination, that is the waste, is removed and placed in an engineered landfill and the contaminated
sub-soil and contaminated ground water are remediated by soil washing, pump and treat, bioremediation
and other techniques.

When a site for disposal of contaminated material is not available, then control of contamination is done
prior to remediation. In such a case, contamination of ground water is controlled by preventing infiltration
of rainfall water into the waste by providing suitable cover systems (Figure 2) and surface water drainage
system (Figure 4) on the top of the waste. In addition, vertical cut-off barriers are provided around the
waste site to control spreading of contaminant plume (Figure 3). Surface water drainage system is
provided to control surface run-off thereby minimizing infiltration and percolation of overland flow.
Suitable cover slopes are provided to channelise the precipitation from the top of the waste to main
surface drain of the area. Besides, topographic configuration of the land can be changed by constructing
dikes and berms, ditches, levees, chutes etc to control overland flow of water. The types of covers and
vertical cut-off barriers to be provided depend upon the potential of the old landfill to harm the
environment. When the waste is hazardous, sub-soil permeability is high and water table is close to the
base of the landfill, highly impervious covers and cut-off barriers are required. On the other hand, when
the waste is non–hazardous, rainfall is low, subsoil permeability is low and water table is at greater depth
from the base of the landfill, the cover system and cutoff barriers have lower stringency of
impermeability.

273
 Sustainable Landfill Management

In this paper, the combination of different types of cover systems and vertical cut-off barriers to be used
depending on rainfall and subsoil conditions in India is presented.

FIGURE 1: Old Landfill Without Cover and FIGURE 2: Old Landfill with Cover System
Cut-off

For Site A, W =100 m, D = 15 m FIGURE 4: Old Landfill with Cover and

For Site B, W = 500 m, D = 25 m Surface Water Drainage System

FIGURE 3: Old Landfill with Cover System

and Vertical Cut-off Wall

2. TYPES OF COVER SYSTEMS

Different types of covers have been specified for use in new landfills by different countries. These types
of covers are normally specified for hazardous waste (HW) landfills, municipal solid waste (MSW)
landfills and inert waste landfills. A review of liners and cover systems has been given by Street (1994),
Brune (1995), Singh and Datta (1999). Koerner & Daniel (1997) have summarized details of cover
systems to be provided for the above three types of landfills, as well as, covers for abandoned dumps.
These covers have been classified as covers for minimum percolation, covers for medium percolation
and covers for maximum percolation. Based on these recommendations, some modifications have been
incorporated and three types of cover systems have been chosen for the present study. These covers,
designated as A, B and C, are shown in Figures 5 to 7. Cover system A corresponds to the most
impervious amongst the three covers and is based on the type of cover system used for hazardous
waste landfills. Cover system B is less impervious than cover system A and is based on cover system
adopted for MSW landfills. Cover system C does not have very low permeability and is suitable for
wastes that have very low potential for contamination. These three cover systems have to be adopted for
old landfills depending on the potential of landfills to cause contamination.

274
 Control Measures for Old Landfills and Waste Dumps

A comparison of Figures 4 to 6 shows that barrier layer of cover system A is made of composite material,
i.e. geomembrane and compacted clay whereas in the case of cover system B the barrier layer is either
made of geomembrane resting on low permeability soil or of compacted clay (CCL). Cover system C
does not have a geomembrane or compacted clay layer.

FIGURE 6. Cover System B

FIGURE 5. Cover System A

FIGURE 7. Cover System C

3. TYPES OF VERTICAL CUT-OFF BARRIERS

Vertical cutoff barriers, of low permeability relative to the surrounding soils, are required for prevention of
the lateral spread of contaminated ground water beneath the base of landfills. Different types of cut-off
barriers have been presented by Ryan (1985), Mitchell (1994), Druback and Arlotta (1985), Leonards
et.al (1985) and these include (a) soil-bentonite walls, (b) cement-bentonite walls, (d) vibrating beam
walls, (e) composite walls, (f) sheet pile walls, (g)soil-cement jet grouted walls. Amongst the above walls,
the lowest permeability is exhibited by composite walls comprising of a geomembrane installed in soil-
bentonite (Fig 8). Amongst the other walls, the soil-bentonite wall (Fig. 7) has the permeability of the
order of 10-7 cm/sec. Cement-bentonite, plastic concrete and jet grouted walls have the permeability of
the order of 10-6 cm/sec. Steel sheet pile walls show leakage through joints and plastic concrete walls
may be difficult to seal hydraulically between adjacent panels. Cement-bentonite walls may be
susceptible to chemical attack. Hence, the two types of walls which have been selected for use in
vertical barriers in the present study are soil-bentonite walls and composite walls as shown in the
Figures 8 and 9; the latter being used for waste having high contamination potential.

A soil-bentonite wall is constructed by excavating a trench which is stabilized using slurry composed of 5
to 7 percent bentonite and water. The slurry maintains the vertical stability of the trench. As the wall is
excavated it is simultaneously backfilled by material, which finally forms the wall. Permeability of the

275
 Sustainable Landfill Management
backfill material is of the order of 1x10-7 cm/sec. This is achieved by using a natural clay or a local soil +
bentonite mixture.

In a composite wall, a geomembrane is inserted into the backfill continuously along the center of the
trench. Thus a continuous wall with permeability less than 1x10-12 cm/sec is formed. The joints of the
geomembrane are made of a locking system which ensure a continuous water tight joint.
.

FIGURE 8. Soil-Bentonite Wall FIGURE 9.Composite Wall

4. FACTORS AFFECTING CHOICE OF CONTROL MEASURES

Many factors enter into the picture while deciding cover systems and vertical cut-off barriers around old
landfills. These factors are listed below.
1. Type of waste – Is it hazardous, municipal or inert waste?
2. Rainfall condition – Does the region receive high rainfall or does it have arid dry climate?
3. Subsoil condition – Does the subsoil exhibit high permeability or is it impervious?
4. Ground water table – Is the ground water table close to the ground surface or deep below it?
5. Depth to bedrock – How far is the bedrock lying below the ground surface?
6. Topography – Is the landfill in low-lying area, sloping ground or flat ground?
7. Distance from nearest habitat – What is the distance to the nearest cluster of houses? Distance
from nearest drinking water well – What is the distance to the nearest drinking water well – open
well or tube well?

Others e.g. possibility of flooding.

If the impacts of the all the factors listed above are to be taken into account, a very complex matrix of all
the factors has to be analysed. For the present study, a simplified analysis based only on the first four
factors has been undertaken to determine suitable cover system and vertical cut-off barrier. For
hazardous waste, high rainfall region, highly permeable subsoil and high water table (i.e. shallow depth
of water table from ground surface), stringent control measures have to be taken. On the other hand if
the waste is non-hazardous, rainfall is less, subsoil is of low permeability and water table is low (i.e.
depth of water table is large), less stringent measures can be adopted.

276
 Control Measures for Old Landfills and Waste Dumps

5. RANGE OF RAINFALL AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS IN INDIA

India is a country of diversity. Climatic conditions vary here from place to place. Rainfall varies from 0 to
50 cm annually in Rajasthan to 400 cm in Cherapunji. Rainfall in the rest of the country lies between the
two limits.

Soil conditions also vary widely in different parts of the country. Different types of soils found in India are
alluvial soil, black cotton soil, desert sand, lateritic soil and marine clay. Amongst these, black cotton soil
and marine clay are least pervious with coefficient of permeability (k) of the order of 10-7 cm/sec where
as alluvial sand and desert sand is most pervious soil with k greater than 10-2 cm/sec.

Ground water table also varies widely in different parts of the country. Ground water may be above the
ground level in marshy areas. The water table usually lies 0 to 5 meters below ground surface if the site
lies near a river or water body and in other cases water table may be at large depth if the site is far away
from river or water body.

6. THREE LEVEL GROUPING OF DIFFERENT PARAMETERS

Taking into consideration the wide variety of different conditions, these can be clubbed into three levels
of grouping i.e. high, medium (or moderate) and low. Grouping is done in the following manner.

Type of Waste: High contamination potential (hazardous waste), Moderate contamination

potential (municipal solid waste), Low containment potential (construction
& demolition waste)
Rainfall: High (>200cm-wet), Moderate (50 to 200cm), Low (<50 cm-dry)
Location of ground water table: High (Ground surface to 5 m), Moderate (5m to 30 m),
Low (>30 m)
Sub-soil permeability: High (k>10-3 cm/sec), Moderate (k-10-3 cm/sec to 10-7 cm/sec),
Low(k<10-7cm/sec)

7. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR DIFFERENT GROUPINGS

Subsurface contamination is an important factor for old landfill sites where hazardous wastes and
municipal solid wastes have been dumped in the past. This is not an important issue at sites where
construction & demolition wastes have been dumped. The designer has a wide variety of cover systems
and vertical cut-off barriers for contamination control. As a first step it is necessary to check the quality of
leachate that is being generated below old landfill sites. If the quality of leachate is within acceptable
limits, then control measures are not required. However, if the quality of leachate is poor, then the type of
cover system and vertical cut-off barrier has to be decided. In this paper three types of cover systems
and two types of vertical cut-off barriers have been considered. Table 1 lists the recommended cover
systems and vertical cut-off barriers depending on sixteen cases of different combinations of type of
waste, rainfall condition, location of ground water table and sub-soil permeability. All these
recommendations are preliminary in nature and can be adopted after conducting detailed studies at
locations where quality of leachate is poor.

One can observe from the table that most impervious covers and cut-off barriers are to be provided when
the type of waste is hazardous, rainfall is high, water table is near to the ground surface and sub-soil
permeability is high. The stringency of imperviousness reduces as potential for contamination decreases.

277
 Sustainable Landfill Management

8. COST ESTIMATES

To arrive at an idea of the costs involved in undertaking the control measures suggested in Table 1, two
hypothetical sites have been considered (Site A and Site B). Site A represents a small landfill and Site B
represents a relatively large landfill. Size of Site A is 100m x 100m in plan with vertical cut-off depth of
15 m. The size of the other site is 500m x 500m with vertical cut-off depth of 25 m as shown in Figure 3.
For both the sites, the costs of providing a cover system and vertical cut-off has been estimated taking
different types of covers (Cover A and B) and different types of cut-off walls (Soil-Bentonite and
Composite walls). For the purpose of analysis, the unit rates of different materials as existing in Delhi are
used (see Table 2). The costs of different types of control measures are given in Table 3 for the small
landfill and in Table 4 for the large landfill. One notes from the tables that when the waste is hazardous,
region is wet with high water table and high permeability soil, the cost of providing cover and vertical cut-
off wall lie in between Rs.18.43x106 to Rs. 30.92 x107, i.e. a cost of Rs.1200 to Rs. 1850 per square
meter of base area. In contrast, for municipal solid waste and dry region with high water table and low
permeability soil the cost lies between Rs.5.8 x 106 to Rs. 19.12 x107, i.e. a cost of Rs.550 to Rs. 800 per
square meter of base area. Other costs fall in between these two cases.

9.CONCLUSIONS

In this paper an attempt has been made to study the factors affecting the choice of cover systems and
vertical cut-off barriers for old landfill sites. On the basis of literature review as well as rainfall and sub-
soil conditions in India, preliminary recommendations have been made which will assist an engineer in
arriving a suitable cover system and vertical cut-off barrier. The cost analysis shows that , depending on
the meteorological and sub-soil condition as well as type of waste, significant financial resources are
required for control of sub-surface contamination.

REFERENCES

1. Brune, Landfill Liner Systems in U.Holzlohver et.al. (eds) Landfill Liner Systems-State of the-Art
Report, Penshaw Press, Great Britain, B1 - B4 (1995).
2. Druback, G.W.and Arlotta Jr., S.V., Composite System Vertical Cutoff Barrier, Hydraulic Barriers
in Soil and Rock, ASTM STP874, 24-33 (1985).
3. Koerner,R.M. and Daniel, D.E.,Final Covers for Solid Waste Landfills and Abandoned Dumps,
ASCE Press, Virginia (1997).
4. Leonards, G.A., Schmednecht, F., Chameau, J.L and Diamond, S., Vibrated Beam
Method,Hydraulic Barriers in Soil and Rock, ASTM STP874, 34-44(1985).
5. Mitchell,J.K., Physical Barriers for Waste Containment, First International Congress on
Environmental Geotechnics Edmonton, Canada, 951- 961(1994).
6. Ryan,C.R., Slurry Cutoff Walls Applications in the Control of Hazardous Wastes, Hydraulic
Barriers in Soil And Rock, ASTM STP874, 9-23(1985).
7. Singh, M. and Datta, M., Landfill Liners: State-of- the-Art Review in M.Datta, et.al. Industrial Solid
Waste Management and Landfilling Practice, Narosa Publishers, 136-155(1999).
8. Street,A., Landfilling - The Differnce Between Continental, European and British Practice,
Institution of Civil Engineers, London, Geotechnical Engineering, Vol 103, 41-46(1994).

278
 Control Measures for Old Landfills and Waste Dumps

TABLE 1: Recommendations for Cover Systems and Vertical Cut-off Barriers

Type of Rainfall Location of Water Sub-soil Cover Vertical Cut-off
Waste Condition Table Permeability System Barrier
High Cover A Composite
High
Low Cover A Composite
Wet
High Cover A Composite
Low
Hazardous Low Cover A Composite
Waste High Cover A Composite
High
Low Cover A No cutoff
Dry
High Cover A Soil Bentonite
Low
Low Cover A No cutoff
High Cover A Soil Bentonite
High
Low Cover A No Cutoff
Wet
High Cover B Soil Bentonite
Municipal Low
Low Cover B No Cutoff
Solid
Waste High Cover B Soil Bentonite
High
Low Cover B No Cutoff
Dry
High Cover B No Cutoff
Low
Low Cover C No Cutoff

TABLE 2: Unit Rates Used in Cost Estimation

Item Rate
Local Soil Rs. 120/- per cu.m
Yamuna Sand Rs. 200/- per cu.m
Badarpur Sand (Quarried) Rs. 400/- per cu.m
Stone Dust (Gravel) Rs. 550/- per cu.m
Clay from upto 200 km Rs. 600/- per cu.m
Ammended Soil (Delhi Silt+5% Bentonite) Rs. 250/- per cu.m
Ammended Soil (Delhi Silt+10% Bentonite) Rs. 350/- per cu.m
1.5 mm HDPE Geomembrane Rs. 250/- per sq.m
2.0 mm HDPE Geomembrane Rs. 450/- per sq.m
Protective Non-Woven Geotextile Rs. 100/- per sq.m
Excavating trench, stabilizing with bentonite slurry and backfilling with
Rs.1000/- per cu.m
Soil+10%Bentonite
Lined Surface Drain Rs. 700/- per m
Regrading and Establishing Vegetation Rs. 50/- per sq.m

279
 Sustainable Landfill Management

Table 3: Cost Estimate for Landfill (100m x 100m) and Vertical Cut-off Wall (Depth 15 m)

Case Cover Vertical Cost of Cover Cost of Total Cost per Applicability
System Cut-off (Rs x 105) Vertical Cost unit area
Barrier Cut-off (Rs.x Rs./sq.m
(Rs.x105) 106)
HW,
Wet area, High
I Cover A Composite 97.32 87 18.43 1843
W.T., High
Perm.
HW,
Soil- Dry area, Low
II Cover A 97.32 60 15.73 1573
Bentonite WT, High
Perm.
MSW,
Soil- 79.12(Alt 1) 13.91 1391 Wet area, Low
III Cover B 60
Bentonite 58.02(Alt 2) 11.80 1180 WT, High
Perm.
MSW,
79.12(Alt 1) 7.91 791 Dry area,
IV Cover B No cut-off Nil
58.02(Alt 2) 5.80 580 High WT, Low
Perm.
HW =Hazardous Waste MSW =Municipal Solid Waste WT = Water Table Perm. = Permeability

Table 4: Cost Estimate for Landfill (500m x 500m) and Vertical Cut-off Wall (Depth 25 m)

Case Cover Vertical Cut- Cost of Cover Cost of Total Cost Cost per Applicability
5 7
System off Barrier (Rs x 10 ) Vertical (Rs.x 10 ) unit area
Cut-off Rs./sq.m
(Rs.x105)
HW,
Wet area, High
V Cover A Composite 2242.2 850 30.92 1236
W.T., High
Perm.
HW,
Soil- Dry area, Low
VI Cover A 2242.2 600 28.92 1156
Bentonite WT, High
Perm.
MSW,
Soil- 1912.2(Alt 1) 25.12 1004 Wet area, Low
VII Cover B 600
Bentonite 1384.7(Alt 2) 19.84 793 WT, High
Perm.
MSW,
1912.2(Alt 1) 19.12 764 Dry area, High
VIII Cover B No cut-off Nil
1384.7(Alt 2 13.84 553 WT, Low
Perm.
HW =Hazardous Waste MSW =Municipal Solid Waste WT = Water Table Perm. = Permeability

280

View publication stats