IWWG Task Group on
SUSTAINABLE LANDFILLING
Chair: Heijo Scharff
Background
The task group "Sustainable Landfilling" was founded on June 2005 in Montegrotto, Italy, following the decision of the Scientific Advisory Committee of IWWG at the Lake Toya meeting on Hokkaido, Japan (ICLRS, 2004). The Sustainable Landfilling task group has been founded in order to co-ordinate interdisciplinary research on sustainable landfilling, discuss and disseminate related results, and to provide scientific support for modern regulations.
Aims and Objectives
The Group aims to carry out the following.
To collate research results on the following topics:
- a working definition of sustainable landfill;
- the criteria for landfill completion;
- the operational controls/measures to achieve a sustainable landfill, including: the waste acceptance criteria necessary; and the accelerated physical, chemical and biological stabilisation techniques required and the optimum time for their application.
To work with other groups to achieve the above.
To disseminate its findings:
- in the Journal, Waste Management;
- in monographs or other special publications;
- at IWWG meetings and those of organisations collaborating with the group.
Work in progress
During a workshop in October 2009 it was concluded that the landfill industry and the regulators need a definition in order to agree on certificates of completion more than a definition of sustainable landfill. Completion is the moment at which the responsibility for remaining risk is transferred from the operator to society. For operators, regulators and society this is a very important moment. The key issue is consequently more about risk and risk assessment than about sustainability.
A definition of acceptable risk is also needed to provide guidance for after-use and the remaining minimal (custodial) care during after-use. Functional stability cannot be separated from the surrounding environment and from the proposed after-use. Consequently the after-use has to be decided before the risk assessment can be carried out. And in the risk assessment they have to be considered together.
Considering these issues the workshop concluded on the following definition of acceptable risk for landfills in the context of aftercare completion:
1) The landfill reaches functional stability (based on site-specific physical, chemical, and biological characteristics of the waste mass and its location) such that the landfill, taking into account its proposed after-use, is unlikely to pose an unacceptable risk to human health or the environment;
2) During the process towards stability no unacceptable risk should occur;
3) This situation should be reached as quickly as possible and within the financial provision time;
4) The funding for completion of aftercare has been secured and allows for appropriate after-use of the site with minimal (custodial) care.
Based on this definition SLTG continues its work on landfill completion. The next step will be to make an inventory of critical aspect in the framework of aftercare completion, to review existing approaches and to evaluate intentions, procedures and criteria of completion. To achieve it aims and objectives the task group will cooperate with other IWWG task groups on specific issues.
Heijo Scharff - Chair of Sustainable Landfilling IWWG Task Group
Members
The task group members include academic and industrial researchers and scientists from different countries:
|
André van Zomeren |
Energy Research Centre of the Netherlands |
NL |
|
Debra Reinhart |
University of Central Florida |
USA |
|
Heijo Scharff |
NV Afvalzorg Holding |
NL |
|
Jeremy Morris |
GeoSyntec |
USA |
|
Lale Andreas |
Lulea University of Technology |
SE |
|
Marion Crest |
Suez Environment |
FR |
|
Masato Yamada |
National Institute of Environmental Studies |
JP |
|
Morton Barlaz |
North Carolina State University |
USA |
|
Richard Beaven |
University of Southampton |
UK |
|
Roberto Raga |
University of Padua |
IT |
|
Theodore Bouchez |
Cemagref |
FR |
|
Timo Heimovaara |
Technical University Delft |
NL |
|
Tiziana Lai |
University of Padua |
IT |
|
Xavier Lefebvre |
Institut National des Sciences Appliquées de Toulouse |
FR |
Apart from the above members there is a large group of platform members (>50) following the work and occasionally contributing to the discussions.
Chair & Contact person:
Heijo Scharff
NV Afvalzorg Holding, The Netherlands
Tel: +31888010801
E-mail: h.scharff@afvalzorg.nl
Next Task Group Meetings:
- Friday 13 May 2011 at ADEME in Paris, France.
- 3-7 October 2011, during Sardinia 2011, S. Margherita di Pula, Italy
For further information please contact: a.roodenburg@afvalzorg.nl
NEWS
ICLRS 2010 landfill completion sessions
The goal of two sessions on landfill completion during the 6th InterContinental Landfill Research Symposium in Kiroro, Japan (June 2010) was to obtain a shared notion on minimum requirements for completion procedures, a shared notion on criteria that are relevant or necessary for completion procedures and recommendations on aspects that need further attention and development. The presentations during the session clarified that conceptual differences exist between various approaches. The different approaches may not be in contradiction or mutually exclusive. For instance it can be questioned if there really is a fundamental difference or a contradiction between table values and site-specific modelling. Models are used to determine the table values. Providing a guideline with generic threshold values that could be considered by the competent authority does not exclude that the competent authority could consider site-specific conditions and deviate from the generic threshold values. Advocates of table values often state that the table values should be considered as guidance and that local conditions should be considered when appropriate. Providing reassurance on the future can only be done with models. Even simple extrapolation without process knowledge is a model. Models are necessary to demonstrate long-term compliance. Models are also necessary to demonstrate compliance for parameters that cannot be measured. If however it is possible to cost-effectively measure a parameter, measuring should always be preferred.
The sessions concluded that SLTG could/should:
- Continue the discussion to further clarify intention of different terminology and approaches.
- In particular clarify the definition of functional stability.
- Promote research on hydrology and preferential pathways.
- Promote reduction of the remaining emission potential.
- Clarify the contributions of modelling and table values to completion criteria.
Significant and important steps were made and SLTG has received input to move forward.
Joint CLEAR-SLTG meeting
The main purpose of the joint meeting was to have an exploratory discussion on how to approach and to define criteria for methane emission in relation to aftercare completion. The discussion indicated that it might be too early to propose emission target values. Measurement methods cannot yet be considered accurate and affordable enough. Some participants mentioned that target values are political and societal decisions and consequently a task for the regulators. Regulators need to be supported by experts. The very least that should be done is to document research projects very well in order to develop BAT and provide results to regulators. Some are of the opinion that CLEAR is ready to provide a proposals for guidance and to provide some design criteria. But guidance cannot yet guarantee efficiency. The general feeling in the meeting was that more full-scale experience is needed. Based on the measurement difficulties it was also felt that for the moment means rather than targets need to be proposed. CLEAR expressed interest in continued involvement in this issue. The meeting agreed that SLTG take the lead in defining concrete and specific questions and forward these questions to the CLEAR group.
SLTG meeting
The main purpose of the SLTG meeting was to discuss administrative issues in particular progress of priority topics listed in SLTG's action plan. Things worth mentioning are listed below.
The email inquiry on critical (in relation to aftercare completion) components extending post-operational phase will be repeated to further reduce the list.
SLTG was requested to clarify the definition of functional stability and in particular if it relates to the moment when aftercare is ended? During an ICLRS presentation the impression arose that functional stability is during the entire process. The SWANA definition is the absence of environmental risk. Various participants mentioned they always understood that functional stability is considered an end-point. The SLTG definition seems to imply functional stability is an endpoint. During the meeting the SLTG participants agreed it is an endpoint. This has to be confirmed with the SLTG members that could not attend the meeting.
Progress with a review paper on completion approaches was reported. Co-authors will contact the groups that have proposed approaches to verify correct description. SLTG meeting participants will have the opportunity to have a look at the paper before publication.
With respect to data management and sharing Leach XS Lite is extended with a large number of Dutch leachate data. INERIS indicated they might be interested to make LFG data available. SLTG members are stimulated to share data with others through Leach XS Lite (freeware).