1 CONTENTS 1.INTRODUCTION 2.LITERATURE SURVEY SO FAR2.1IMPACTS OF SOLID WASTE ON HEALTH 2.2WASTE DISPOSAL IN LANDFILLS 2.3ESSENTIAL COMPONENTS OF LANDFILLS2.4PROBLEMS DUE TO LANDFILL SITING 2.5LANDFILL SITE SELECTION 2.6RELATIVE HAZARD ASSESSMENT SYSTEMS 2.7GROUNDWATER VULNERABILITY 2.8ROLE OF GIS2.9INDIAN PERSPECTIVE 3.IDENTIFICATION OF THE PROBLEM 4.AIM OF THE RESEARCH 5.METHODOLOGY 5.1Why DRASTIC 5.2STAGES OF WORK 6.SUMMARY 7.TIME SCHEDULE REFERENCES
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Modernization and progress has had its share of disadvantages and one of the main aspects of
concern is the pollution it is causing to the earth – be it land, air, and water. With increase in the
global population and the rising demand for food and other essentials, there has been a rise in the
amount of waste being generated daily by each household. This waste is ultimately thrown into
municipal waste collection centers from where it is collected by the area municipalities to be
further thrown into the landfills and dumps.
Landfill site selection is a complex process involving social, environmental and technical
parameters. Since it involves debatable issues, the most suitable site that is available has to be
chosen so that the evil effects to environment are minimal. Risk to human health is perhaps, the
most important factor to be considered for landfill siting. The aim of this work is to develop amethodology that can be used to rank suitability of landfill sites based on human health risk. If
existing landfill siting regulations in India are incorporated in this methodology, it can be applied
to any of the sites in India. For processing large quantities of spatial data, Geographical
information system (GIS) will be used.
2. LITERATURE SURVEY SO FAR
2.1 Impacts of solid waste on health
Organic domestic waste which undergoes degradation creates a favourable condition for the
growth of microbial population and becomes a serious threat to human health. Direct handling of
solid waste also results in various types of infectious and chronic diseases in case of waste
workers and rag pickers.
The population which gets affected by the unscientific disposal of solid waste includes – the
population in areas where there is no proper waste disposal method, especially the pre-school
children; waste workers; and workers in facilities producing toxic and infectious material, Therisk will be very high in case of population living close to a waste dump and the population who
is supplied with water supply which has contaminated either due to waste dumping or leakage
from landfill sites. Solid waste, if uncollected and undisposed, also increases risk of injury and
Exposure to hazardous waste, an even more problematic one, can affect human health. Children
are more vulnerable to these types of health problems. In fact, direct exposure can lead to
diseases through chemical exposure as the release of chemical waste into the environment maylead to chemical poisoning. Many studies have been carried out in different parts of the world to
establish a connection between health and hazardous waste.
Waste from agriculture and industries can also cause serious health risks. Other than this, if
hazardous waste and radio- active wastes from industries aren‟t ha ndled in separate sections, the
co-disposal of them with municipal waste can expose people to chemical and radioactive
hazards. Uncollected solid waste can also pollute runoff water, resulting in the formation of
stagnant water bodies that become the breeding ground of disease-causing mosquitoes andmicrobes. Waste dumping near a water source also causes contamination of the water body or the
ground water source. The risk of such a hazard increases if more people are using such polluted
water resources. Direct dumping of untreated waste in rivers, seas, and lakes results in
accumulation of toxic substances in the food chain, through the plants and animals that feed on
it.
Disposal of hospital and other medical waste requires special attention since this can
create major health hazards. This waste generated from the hospitals, health care centres, medical
laboratories, and research centers such as discarded syringe needles, bandages, swabs, plasters,
and other types of infectious waste are often disposed with the regular non-infectious waste.
Waste treatment and disposal sites can also create health hazards for the neighborhood.
Improperly operated incineration plants cause air pollution and improperly managed and
designed landfills attract all types of insects and rodents that spread disease. Ideally these sites
should be located at a safe distance from all human settlement. Landfill sites should be well lined
and walled to ensure that there is no leakage into the nearby ground water sources.
Recycling too carries health risks if proper precautions are not taken. Workers working
with waste containing chemical and metals may experience toxic exposure. Disposal of health-
care wastes require special attention since it can create major health hazards, such as Hepatitis B
and C, through wounds caused by discarded syringes. Rag pickers and others who are involved
landfill is designed to contain or store the wastes so that the exposure to human and environment
could be minimized (Nidhi, Misra and Shukla, 2011)
Landfills minimize the harmful impact of solid waste on the environment by the following
mechanisms (Fig. 17.3): (a) isolation of waste through containment; (b) elimination of polluting pathways; (c) controlled collection and treatment of products of physical, chemical and
biological changes within a waste dump – both liquids and gases; and (d) environmental
monitoring till the waste becomes stable (Ministry of Urban Development, India)
2.3 Essential components of landfills
The seven essential components of a MSW landfill are:
(a) A liner system at the base and sides of the landfill which prevents migration of leachate orgas to the surrounding soil.
b) A leachate collection and control facility which collects and extracts leachate from within
and from the base of the landfill and then treats the leachate.
(c) A gas collection and control facility (optional for small landfills) which collects and extracts
gas from within and from the top of the landfill and then treats it or uses it for energy recovery.
(d) A final cover system at the top of the landfill which enhances surface drainage, preventsinfiltrating water and supports surface vegetation.
(e) A surface water drainage system which collects and removes all surface runoff from the
landfill site.
(f) An environmental monitoring system which periodically collects and analyses air, surface
water, soil-gas and ground water samples around the landfill site.
(g) A closure and post-closure plan which lists the steps that must be taken to close and secure a
landfill site once the filling operation has been completed and the activities for long-term
monitoring, operation and maintenance of the completed landfill (Ministry of Urban
• Collection and disposal is a major environmental problem related to human health, urban
environment quality, greenhouse effect and natural and urban landscape aesthetics.
• Nuisance -the significance of which is often subjective-caused by the passage of MSW
collection vehicles, the smells, the sight of landfill areas, the negative feelings from neighboringwith an MSW collection facility, the worry for potential public health risks and the not-in-my
backyard (NIMBY) syndrome understandably creates a negative social attitude towards MSW
treatment and landfilling. (Hadjibiros, Dermatas and Laspidou 2011)
A site may be technically and economically feasible yet may be opposed heavily by the
public. The “not in my back yard” (NIMBY) sentiment is high initially. However, with proper
discussion it can be overcome in some cases. Early assessment regarding how strong the NIMBY
sentiment is can significantly reduce the time and money spent on planning for a landfill sitewhich may not materialize. In many instances residents around a proposed site cooperate if the
landfill site owner‟s representative listens t o concerns of the area residents and considers those
concerns in designing and monitoring a site. Noise, dust, odor, increases in traffic volume, and
reduction in property value concern the area residents more than the fear of groundwater
contamination (Lee and Lee 2008).
On the other hand, in most developing and in some developed countries, MSW
management is nothing more than uncontrolled dumping. Discharge into a riverbed has been the
traditional way of getting rid of refuse for thousands of years. Environmental impacts used to be
tolerable when refuse mainly contained biodegradable organic matter, but are becoming
increasingly important with increasing waste volume, toxicity and non-degradability
(Hadjibiros, Dermatas and Laspidou,2011)
Selection of a landfill site usually comprises of the following steps, when a large number
(e.g. 4 to 8) landfill sites are available: (i) setting up of a location criteria; (ii) identification of
search area; (iii) drawing up a list of potential sites; (iv) data collection; (v) selection of few best-
ranked sites; (vi) environmental impact assessment and (vii) final site selection and land
acquisition. However, in municipalities where availability of land is limited, the selection
process may be confined to only one or two sites and may involve the following steps: (i) Setting
up of locational criteria; (ii) Data collection; (iii) Environmental impact assessment and (vi)
Final site selection (Lee and Lee,2008).
An effective technique for landfill siting should have the following characteristics (Lane et al.,
1983):
1. The technique should evaluate all land in a systematic and impartial way that can be
reasonably considered available for landfill.
2. The technique should clearly establish the relative suitability of land for absolute suitability or
minimum acceptable standards. These criteria or standards can vary from area to area depending
on different constraints on available land or different public concerns. The technique should
illustrate which lands are better or worse for sanitary landfills, rather than which lands are
suitable or unsuitable.
3. The technique should be practical and be based on commonly available information.
4. The technique should be adaptable to computerized analysis.
5. The technique should be designed to explain clearly and directly the analysis and results in a
format easily understandable by the officials and the general public.
Landfill is considered as an active installation that can produce emissions (Zamoranoaet.al, 2008). Various landfill siting techniques have been developed for this purpose. For
example, Lin and Kado (1998) developed a mixed-integer spatial optimization model based on
vector-based data to help decision makers find a suitable site within a certain geographic area.
Other researchers propose the use of multiple criteria analysis by itself or with GIS
(Kontos,Komilis and Halvadakis 2005 ). The use of artificial intelligence technology, such as
expert systems, can also be very helpful in solid waste planning and management. Fuzzy
inference systems have also been proposed.
A methodology called EVIAVE is developed by university of Granada and they used it
for the evaluation of an existing landfill site in Spain .They used cartographic raster modeling in
GIS for the work. EVIAVE is validated with landfills in Venezuela, Chile and Spain (Zamoranoa
et.al. 2008). Later, Abedinzadeh et.al (2013) applied this methodology for diagnosis of a landfill
in Iran.
Spatial models were generally constructed into a mixed-integer or non-linear
programming models. These models involve analysis of suitability of land parcels within an area,specification of objective functions by the analyst, and determination of candidate locations
which satisfy the constraints for continuity or compactness and other factors. Diamond and
Wright (1989) defined compactness as the square of the longest distance between any two points
within the selected zone divided by the area of the zone. Non-linear and integer multi objective
programming models were then applied to solve a land use problem. The non-linear property of
the model makes it difficult to solve by a computer. Wright et al. (1983) defined compactness as
the length of the perimeter of the selected zone divided by the area. Benabdallahand and Wright
(1992) used the same definition of compactness and a mixed-integer programming model to
analyze a multiple sub-region allocation problem with raster-based data. However, the large
number of variables and constraints used in their model make it difficult to solve. Although the
model is changed into a non-linear model to reduce the number of variables and constrains, the
solution obtained by the non-linear model may not be the global optimum.
Minor and Jacobs (1994) proposed an improved mix-integer model to find the landfill
site with best compactness and least cost from a set of irregularly shaped land parcels. Compared
to these previous models for raster-based data, model developed by Kado and Lin (1998) used
less variables and constraints.
2.6 Relative Hazard Assessment Systems
A number of relative hazard assessment systems for waste disposal sites have been
developed over the past three decades and reported in literature. Each one of these systems
evaluates the relative degree of hazard posed by a site to environment and human health
considering only the major parameters that describe the site quite substantially. Normally, waste
sites are evaluated for one or more of the following three hazard modes: 1) migration of
pollutants away from the site via groundwater, surface water, or air routes, or a combination
thereof, 2) fire and explosion potential, and 3) direct contact with hazardous substances. In most
of the systems, site ranking is based either on the combined score for various routes under
vulnerability to contamination was defined by the National Research Council (1993) as „„the
tendency or likelihood for contaminants to reach a specified position in the GW system after
introduction at some location above the uppermost aquifer.‟‟ Vowinkel, Clawges, Buxton,
Stedfast, and Louis (1996) defined vulnerability as sensitivity plus intensity, where „„intensity‟‟
is a measure of the source of contamination. Clearly, GW vulnerability is a function not only of
the properties of the GW flow system (intrinsic susceptibility) but also of the proximity of
contaminant sources, characteristics of the contaminant, and other factors that could potentially
increase loads of specified contaminants to the aquifer and (or) their eventual delivery to a GW
resource (Michael, Thomas, Michael, & Dennis 2005). As per US General Accounting Office
(GAO) (1991) hydro- geologic vulnerability is „„a function of geologic factors such as soil
texture and depth to GW.‟‟ Vulnerability is „„a function of these hydro -geologic factors, as well
as the pesticid e use factors that influence the site‟s susceptibility,‟‟ whereas risk „„incorporatesthe size of the population at risk from potential pesticide contamination, i.e. the number of
people who obtain their drinking water from GW in the area.‟‟ Vulnerability is distinct from
pollution risk; pollution risk depends not only on vulnerability but also on the existence of
significant pollutant loading entering the sub-surface environment (Margane 2003). It is
possible to have high aquifer vulnerability but no risk of pollution, if there is no significant
pollutant loading; and to have high pollution risk in spite of low vulnerability, if the pollutant
loading is exceptional. It is important to make clear the distinction between vulnerability and
risk. Leaching potential refers to the risk that soluble pesticides will be transmitted through the
soil to the GW reservoir (Huddleston 1996). Leaching potential depends on the soil
permeability, water table conditions, and hydraulic loading. A vulnerability assessment defines
the risk to an aquifer based on the physical characteristics of the vadose zone and aquifer and the
presence of potential contaminant sources. According to Foster (1987) , aquifer pollution
vulnerability is „„the intrinsic characteristics which dete rmine the sensitivity of various parts of
an aquifer to being adversely affected by an imposed contaminant load.‟‟ GW pollution risk is
„„the interaction between the natural vulnerability of the aquifer and the pollution loading that is,
or will be, applied on the sub- surface environment as a result of human activity.‟‟ (Rahman
There is no absolutely perfect methodology existing for ground water vulnerability
assessment, but different methods are developed by various groups of experts all over the world
considering various important factors affecting contaminant transport and groundwatercontamination. Those methods can be grouped under three major categories
i. Process based simulation model methods
ii. Empirical statistical methods
iii. Overlay and index methods
1. Process based simulation model methods
Process based simulation model methods are scientific methods which reckons relevant
processes regarding contaminant fate and transport. Using them, lethal threats for groundwater
can be identified and zoning of groundwater protection zones can be done .Among these
methods, Mathematical models are more accurate since they account for variation of
concentration along both space and time. But these are not commonly used for regional
groundwater flow modeling. MODFLOW is a common process based simulation modeling
software.
2. Empirical statistical methods
These methods use the probability theory by incorporating some uncertainty. Historically,
these methods are the least preferred ones because when the candidate site is a large one, the
complexity associated is also large. In these types of methods, vulnerability of an area is
expressed in terms of probability of contamination. It uses the known contamination distribution
of that geographic area. The disadvantages of these methods are,
i. Statistical methods are difficult to develop
ii. Once developed for a region, it can only be applied to regions with similar
method does not consider ratings and/or weights. The index is determined from the relation
between the two parameters d and k.
EPIK is a parameter weighting and rating method especially developed for karst aquifers
to protect water supply sources (springs and wells). This method does not consider parametersdepending on time (I e rainfall, recharge,) but only the intrinsic parameters of the aquifer:
presence of epikarst (E), the characteristics of the protective cover (P), the infiltration conditions
(I) and the karst network development (K) (Ligi 2008)
2.8 Role of GIS
The use of maps containing various landfill selection criteria is a simple and common
method to determine landfill suitability. Generally, maps containing data such as geology, soils,
water quality, and floodplains are superimposed on one another to determine a final map of
landfill suitability. Low technology techniques consist of the use of manual overlays and hand
drawn maps in order to determine landfill suitability. Simple overlays can be produced with
tracing paper or acetate. However, low technology cartographic procedures are time consuming
and the accuracy of the final products depends on the cartographer.
Geographic Information Systems (GIS) are ideal for preliminary site selection studies
because it can manage large volumes of spatially distributed data from a variety of sources and
efficiently store, retrieve, analyze and display information (Siddiqui, Everett and Vieux 1996).
Using GIS for site selection not only increases the objectivity and flexibility but also ensures that
a large amount of spatial data can be processed in a short time. Relatively easy presentations of
GIS siting results are also one of the advantages (Lin and Kado 1998).
GIS in groundwater vulnerability assessment
With the growing recognition of the importance of underground water resources, efforts
are increasing to prevent, reduce, and eliminate GW pollution. The DRASTIC model can be a
valuable tool for identifying GW supplies that are vulnerable to contamination using basic
hydro-geologic variables believed to influence contaminant transport from surface sources to
GW (Kalinski, Kelly, Bogardi, Ehrman, & Yamamoto 1994). In India much work has been
done to test underground water for various trace and major elements. So far very few integrated
4. Ayub,Sohail, and Afzal Hussain Khan. “ Landfill Practice in India: A Review. ” Journal of
Chemical and Pharmaceutical Research , 3(4) (2011):270-279.5. Benabdallah,Salah and J. Wright. “Multiple Subregion Allocation Models .” Urban
Planning Dev., ASCE 118(1992),24 – 40.
6. Charnpratheep,Krerkpong, Qiming Zhou, and Barry Garner. “Preliminary Landfill Site
Screening Using Fuzzy Geographical Information Systems. ” Waste Management and
Research 15(2)(1997), 197 – 215.
7. Bharti, Dattatraya, Isub Ali Sayyad, G. G. Gaikwad, D. R. Taikar and J. Dhore . “ Physico-Chemical Characteristics of Bore Well Water Quality. ” J. Chem. Pharm. Res,
3(2)(2011),922-927.
8. Dave1, R. S., S. D. Vedia, D.G. Acha rya, G.R. Jain and M.T. Machhar. “ Water Quality
Assessment Studies with Reference to Nitrate Contamination of Modasa Taluka of
Sabarkantha District (North Gujarat) . ” Chem. Pharm. Res, 3(1)(2011),238-241.
9. Department of Water Affairs & Forestry- South Africa. “Minimum R equirements for
Waste Disposal by Landfill. ” Second Edition.
10. Diamond, J. T., and J. R. Wright. “Efficient land allocation.” J. Urban Planning Dev.
ASCE 115 (2)(1989),81 – 96.
11. Energy Information Administration. “ Emissions of Greenhouse Gases in the United
States Comparison of Global Warming Potentials .” The IPCC‟s Second And Third
12. George,Ligi, “Evaluation of the Groundwater Vulnerability of Calicut Corporation using
DRASTIC method,GIS and MODFLOW” M Tech thesis, NIT Calicut,2008 .
13. Hadjibiros,Kimon, D. Dermatas, C. S. Laspidou. “ Municipal Solid Waste Management
And Landfill Site Selection In Greece: Irrationality Versus Efficiency. ” Global NEST
Journal, Vol 13, No 2, (2011),pp 150-161.
14. “Health impacts of solid waste”, accessed in 20/9/2013, http://edugreen.teri.res.in.
15. Joy,Joone. “Estimating the Overall Cost of a Landfill .” Post graduate dissertation,NIT
Calicut, Kerala, India,2009.
16. Kao,J. J.. “ Multifactor Spati al Analysis For Landfill Siting.” Journal of Environmental
Engineering 122 (10)(1996), 902 – 908.
17. Kontos,T.D., D.P. Komilis, C. P. Halvadakis, “Siting MSW Landfills with a Spatial
Multiple Criteria Analysis Methodology. ” Waste Management , 25 (2005)818 – 832.18. Lane, N., M. William ASCE, and McDonald R Robert. “ Land Suitability Analysis:
Landfill Siting. ” Journal of Urban Planning and Development 109, (1983),50.
19. Lee, Fred G., and Anne Jones Lee. “Guidance on the Evaluation of the Potential Impacts
of a Proposed Landfill” accessed in 19/8/2013 http://www.usda.gov/rus/water .
20. Lin,H. Y. , and J. J. Kado. 1998. “A Vector-Based Spatial Model for Landfill Siting ”
Journal of Hazardous Materials 58(1998),3 – 14.
21. Ministry of the Environment and Forests, Government of India. “Management of
Municipal Solid Wastes” accessed in 19/8/2013.
http://envfor.nic.in/legis/hsm/mswmhr.html.
22. Ministry of Urban Development,Government of India “Principles of Municipal Solid
Waste Management,chapter 2 and 17.” accessed in 19/8/2013. http://www.moud.gov.in.
23. Minor,S.D., and T. L. Jacobs. “ Optimal Land Allocation For Solid- And Hazardous-