Landfill CQA News and Developments

Although the following topic is not directly a landfill CQA issue we thought that it would be of real interest to many of our readers.

Compulsory site waste management plans (SWMPs) for construction projects over £300,000 in value, have been a legal requirement in England since April 2008, and are therefore needed for landfill works contracts. The intention is that the plans will forecast all waste produced on site and how much will be recovered or disposed of.

The SWMP should help businesses manage construction waste as part of a project rather than an afterthought. By planning for construction waste much earlier than has been the practice it should be possible to do much better in managing construction waste. Early experience that has been reported has suggested that in building projects it has been possible to achieve substantial savings which exceed the costs of producing and updating the site waste management plan.

A landfill site lining development or surface restoration project is undeniably a construction project, and almost all will exceed the threshold cost. Therefore, each project will need a site waste management plan, which starts with the designer and becomes the responsibility of the principal contractors on commencement of the work on site.

The regulations set out a range of offences relating to the failure to produce or implement a plan, punishable by a fine of up to £50,000 on summary conviction, or an unlimited fine on conviction on indictment.

On these landfill projects there will be little if any construction waste produced at all, apart from possibly some spoilt or unsuitable material, and the usual site facilities wastes. As ever, these otherwise laudable regulations make little sense in some applications, and in landfill in our view, we have such an example.

So how does a landfill contractor set about writing his site waste management plan after being awarded the contract and receiving the client’s design stage plan, for a landfill project?

What should the SWMP contain?

According to NetRegs, the level of detail that your SWMP should contain depends on the estimated build cost, excluding VAT. Their summary suggests the following:-

For projects estimated at between £300,000 and £500,000 (excluding VAT) the SWMP should contain details of the:

• types of waste removed from the site
• identity of the person who removed the waste
• site that the waste is taken to.

For projects estimated at over £500,000 (excluding VAT) the SWMP should contain details of the:

• types of waste removed from the site
• identity of the person who removed the waste and their waste carrier registration number
• a description of the waste
• site that the waste was taken to
• environmental permit or exemption held by the site where the material is taken.

At the end of the project, you must review the plan and record the reasons for any differences between the plan and what actually happened.

The contractor, or anyone else exporting waste from the site must still comply with the duty of care for waste.  However, because it will now be necessary to record all waste movements in one document, having a SWMP will help the site contractor’s management to ensure they comply with the duty of care.

For help in preparing your SWMP see the video on the Site Waste Management Plan hub page, or  Landfill Site Waste Management Plan page.

The use of a Geosynthetic Clay Liner (GCL) as the low permeability layer in landfill lining systems and restoration caps can provide a cost effective and readily Construction Quality Controlled alternative to natural clay. In fact this material may be the only option in regions where the local geology is such that no clay of suitable quality is available.

A GCL uses Sodium Bentonite, a dehydrated clay that has long been recognised as an ideal impermeable barrier material, and which will expand once in the soil to six or more times its initial volume.
Claymat is an example of this type of product which comprises a sandwich of bentonite between two layers of geotextile. The result is a thin, flexible (it arrives in rolls, clean, easily transported and installed) lining system. Finesse Claymat is as manufactured by ABG of Meltham, and there are a number of other manufacturers.

Layers of sand or fine gravel (150 to 300 mm) are often placed on top and/or below the GCL as specified by the landfill capping system designer to protect it from damage during installation or thereafter.

The GCL membranes on the market have been tested to provide both an excellent self-healing capability, and chemical resistance, and are accepted by most environmental regulators. A paper available from Thomas Telford Journals shows that permeability can be compromised if suitable treatment is not applied at overlaps, so clearly the CQA Engineer will need to take care about ensuring good site procedures on this matter. (See “Forensic analysis of excessive leakage from lagoons lined with a composite GCL”, At Thomas Telford Journals.)

Assessments of the environmental protection afforded by a landfill liner require that all underlying soil and geosynthetics components are considered in landfill contaminant migration assessments. The results described in a 2004 paper provides published data for laboratory GCL diffusion and sorption coefficients, required to perform contaminant migration assessments for five VOC contaminants commonly found in municipal solid waste leachate. Assessment of diffusion coefficients and clay-leachate compatibility assessment is also deemed necessary to ensure acceptable long-term performance. In fact GCL membranes were shown to give permeabilities generally significantly lower than those reported in the literature for compacted clay liner materials.

Pozidrain ground water drainage membrane is also often used in conjunction with a Geosynthetic Clay Liner as when laid above the GCL it reduces the hydraulic head and stress on the geomembrane and it also provides additional physical protection against puncture.

A significant number of landfill sites have already utilised the benefits of Geosynthetic Clay Liners and many use Pozidrain and equivalent products within these systems.

SITA Cornwall  News (January 2008) - reports: Improvement in compliance… Landfill

SITA Cornwall’s two landfill sites play an important role in managing the county’s waste. A great deal of work was carried out in 2007 at the landfills and even more is planned for 2008.

It was a busy year in terms of engineering at United Mines Landfill in 2007, with the construction of a new landfill cell, the diversion of a sewer and surface water system and the capping of an area of 600m2. The leachate plants at both United Mines and Connon Bridge sites were refurbished which assisted the significant reduction of leachate levels.

Local residents and councillors have joined a community liaison group at United Mines to discuss issues around the site and preparations have begun for an open day in spring.

The aim to cap a large area of United Mines and Connon Bridge confirms that major landfill construction will continue in 2008.

2008 will also see the temporary closure of the Connon Bridge Landfill site. Work has already commenced to improve the visual impact, increase gas and odour control and further reduce leachate generation.

Efforts will also be concentrated on reducing the sites’ impacts both on the local and global environment, with the development of a strategy to reduce the sites’ water and energy use.

(Clearly there will be plenty of Landfill CQA work in the region this year - Ed.)

In the design of municipal landfill leachate collection systems, some state regulatory agencies require carbonate content of leachate collection system aggregate not to exceed 15 percent by weight. This requirement comes from a legitimate concern about the possibility of aggregate degradation, or loss of mass due to contact with leachate.

Most involved in landfill design and development will have experienced as a result, the fact that in some areas it is difficult to find carbonate free stone within an reasonably economic distance from the site. Many potential aggregate sources have been eliminated for supplying drainage material, due to this stipulation in the specification, but is it really warranted?

While leachate in MSW landfills is capable of dropping to pHs of 6.5, and sometimes 6, it rarely falls below this other than for short periods. This does not seem to be so low that problems would necessarily be serious, and if any of the carbonate dissolved from the stone, the amount would presumably be low as the reaction would be self limiting due to the dissolved carbonate caused by the reaction being bound to raise the pH. High pH will not erode the carbonate so the problem is corrected.

There is not a huge amount of research work on this that we have been able to find. We would be very interested to receive comments if our readers have sources to research on this matter which are more authoritative than the paper I am about to refer to.

The best paper we have found which sets out to by experimentation over a reasonably extended time period (in this case just under 6 months) to investigate whether carbonate drainage stone, when submerged in leachate, will suffer damage, is the following paper:

Suitability of Carbonate Aggregate in Land fill Leachate Collection Systems; Christopher G. Rubak, PE John,O. Starke, PE William D. Upman, PG M. Merrill Stevens, PhD: Presented to the Nineteenth International Madison Waste Conference, September 25-26 1996, Dept of Engineering Professional Development, University of Wisconsin - Madison.

This paper summarizes a research project which evaluated the suitability of a carbonate aggregate with a municipal solid waste leachate. The tests were conducted over a 20 week period using site specific landfill leachate and collection aggregate. Laboratory bench reactors were constructed to simulate landfill conditions with leachate flowing through carbonate aggregate.

The reactors consisted of 12-inch diameter plexiglass cylinders each charged with 80 pounds of carbonate aggregate. Leachate was then circulated through the reactors. An anaerobic environment was maintained in the reactors by applying 0.5 Atmosphere of CO2.

Fresh leachate was added to the reactors on a regular basis to maintain a constant concentration level during the test. Leachate samples were analyzed to determine the change in dissolved solids throughout the test period. Aggregate material was measured before and after the test to determine net mass change. Chemical equilibrium speciation modelling was also performed and compared to the bench test results.

On the face of it this experiment showed that there was no need for concern about carbonate deterioration even down to the exceptional pH 3.0 (exceptional for an MSW landfill under good regulatory control, built to good current standards).

However, the strange thing about the experiment to the writer is that the leachate used was changed on only, I think, 3 occasions; other than on these occasions the leachate was simply recirculated.

I would have preferred to see results which would ensure that the natural circumstances of a landfill were replicated more closely, and that would have meant allowing fresh leachate to pass through the system all the time.

The views of our readers are encouraged. There is a commenting facility available on the Blog Site to enable you to very easily let us know your views on this.

New MC3000 rolled out

Magpie Drilling has continued its expansion with a further MC3000 added to the drilling rig fleet. Following the increase in customer demand for deeper, larger diameter wells, with temporary and permanent steel casings, the need for increased power, higher torque, and superior depth capabilities are paramount.

The new machine has an extra rod in the carousel enabling it to drill 60m without any crew member ever having to handle a drill rod. A new design for the self extruding barrel has increased the power in which the pusher plate operates making the extrusion process faster and more efficient. More …