Landfill Comparative evaluation in dry and humid areas of the country; Case Study Landfill location: Rasht & Andisheh cities
1 Masoud Monavari, Fatemeh Ghanbari*2, Farham Aminsharei3
1Faculty of Environment & Energy, Assistant Professor, Azad Islamic University, Research and Science
2, 3 Environmental Management Senior Expert,Azad Islamic University, Research and Science Branch- Ahwaz, Iran
In waste management, sanitary waste landfill locations require high attention due to the consequent types of pollutions. Environmental site selection study, prior to land filling operation, as well as monitoring and maintaining of the location subsequently, are of foremost points in landfill site selection.
By means of these studies, it is possible to control the unsuitable emerging impacts from landfill areas.
This research is based on comparative evaluation of two landfill sites, in dry and humid areas. In this research, using Monavari 95-2 method, Rasht and Andisheh landfill are observed respectively as humid and dry area in Iran, then the results from both sites have been compared and the weaknesses and power points of each have been point out.
In Rasht landfill, in Gillan province, there are 600 T waste deposits per day which includes sanitary waste from other 12 cities, 11 countryside, diary manufacturers, manufacturing city, hospitals, in addition to 450T waste for Rasht itself. Andishe landfill locates in 30 Km from Andishe city and next to Akhtar Abad. There are 750 ;Ton sanitary and hospital waste deposit per day. This landfill contains wastes from other 8 cities as well.
According to this method Rasht landfill classified as unacceptable and needs a new suitable site for landfill, Though Andishe landfill is classified as acceptable, needs environmental management program to handle the existing weaknesses.
Key Words: Evaluation, Landfill, Dry area, Humid area, Andisheh and Rasht.
Introduction:
Prudent development of cities, relative population increase and density, lack of efficient administrative organizations related to waste management, industrial and agricultural development, lack of laws and regulation and enough land for landfill application have caused several environmental pollutions and natural resource degradation. Currently the easiest and best way in humid area of the country is piling waste in open air (Monavari 2000). Studies on underdevelopment countries shows, that, with respect to the existing limits, landfill is the most important method in waste management and final deposit (Boyer, Johnasson, 1999).
Waste produced with high humid is a controversial issues in the country. The more humid means the more leaches regardless of precipitation. Studies in Kahrizak, Tehran’s landfill, showed that, the most amounts of produced leaches in this landfill due to the water in the wastes and not the precipitation penetrated in to the wastes. This shows that even in dry area there are a lot of causes to make leach (Safari and Baronian, 2004).
Previously a natural water passage, valley, a part of watershed or a hole was considered as landfill site which was covered by soil and ignored after it meets capacity was filled. Just recently landfills are considered as a worthful resource (Wright and Nebel, 2004).
Sanitary landfill is the best way to mitigate environmental impacts followed by waste deposit. Condensate and burying are parts of landfill process while more condensate, daily coverage, leach gathering are parts of monitoring process. Sanitary landfill decreases the volume of the waste up to 50% as well as decreasing the smell, preventing light objects scattering, insects and rodents throng and controlling the gas and leach (Glynn, 2004).
Lack of international standards in terms of sanitary landfill degrade the environment and decrease the society health level (Hagerty et al,1997).equipments and design development has reduced undesired landfill environmental impacts and made resource optimized utilization possible. Adiquate water and released gas controlling systems has been
installed to mitigate environmental impacts (ghafari 2001).
Rasht landfill, in Gilan province is located on Saravan altitudes, 15 Km from this city, on west side of Rasht-Tehran road, between Golsarak, Moonshgah and Kacha. Specialized road along with Rasht-Tehran road are the access roads to this site ( Shomal Consulting Engineers 1997).According to Statistics from Rasht synoptic station monthly average precipitation in this city is 103 mm and the annual amount is 1335/6mm (irimet,2005). No environmental and engineering standard has been applied at Rasht landfill, and wastes are buried in an open area including forest vales and along the Siyah Roud tributaries. Unfavorable physical condition and lack of managerial and engineering criteria in this area have put it on spotlight in this research.
Andishe landfill, in Tehran province, is located on west side of Tehran, 7 Km from Akhtar Abad village.this landfill is close to Balakhan anticline and Eshtehard fault, directed from south to north (Yekom Consulting Engineer 2001) . This landfill is a vast area with slight slope; therefore there is enough soil to cover the wastes, however appropriate soil use for this purpose has not been observed.
Annual precipitation in this city is 182mm.
Absence of managerial and engineering criteria is the main reason to choose this landfill to research on.
2. Research Method:
Following methods are used in this research:
- Geographical study of the Rasht landfill area as a criterion of humid area landfill and Andisheh landfill as a criterion of dry area landfill
- Identifying the quality of importing wastes into study area based on their source
- Applying Monavari method 95-2 to evaluate the condition of study area.
This method consists of 53 parameters, 20 of which are physical, 8 of which are grouped as qualifications and limits, 25 parameters are categorized as health and environmental criterion. Table No.3 shows these parameters. There are
indexes for each parameter separately which evaluate that special parameter.
Indicator criterions in Monavari Method 95-2 are given in table No.1.
- Comparing effective impacts on environment through weakness identification in study area.
Table No1. Indicators criterion grading in Monavari method 95-2 (Monavari 1999) No criterion indicators grading classification
1 4 Excellent 158-212 acceptable
2 3 good 106-157
3 2 Medium 53-157
4 1 insignificant 0-52
5 1- weak 0- -52 Unacceptable
6 2- Approximate
ly unsuitable
-53 to-105
7 3- unsuitable -106 to -157
8 4- Very
unsuitable
-158 to -212
3. Achievements:
3.1. Waste quality & quantity 3.1.1. Rasht landfill location
Scaling vehicles transferring waste, the amount of importing waste into Rasht landfill has been estimated. 13 municipals, 12 rural districts, 11 governmental companies and offices, 9
manufacturing cities, hospitals and herbivorous companies in Rasht, deposit their waste into this landfill. Total amount of deposited waste is 593/4 ton per day. Quantity of different types of waste deposited into Rasht landfill is shown in table No 2.
Table No2. Amount of importing waste into Rasht landfill
3.1.2. Andisheh landfill:
The quantity of importing waste in to this landfill has been estimated according to types of waste carrying vehicles. 9 municipals deposit their
waste in to this place. There are total amount of 750 tons waste per day .Results are given in table No.3.
Type of waste Amount t/d
Urban waste 546/53
Rural waste 13/12
Governmental Co. waste 10/09 Manufacturing Co. waste 7/21
Herbivorous Co. waste 9/46
Industerial waste 1
Hospital waste 6
Table No. 3. Quantity of depositing waste in Andishe landfill City Quantity (t/d)
Shahryar 230
Malard 150
Shahr-e- Qods 180
Andishe 30
Safa dasht 60
Baghestan 40
Ferdusiyeh 40
Saba shahr 30
Shahed Shahr 20
Total 750
3.2 . landfills comparison:
The result achieved from evaluating and algebraic sum different affected parameters at Rasht landfill, were 28 for physical criterion, -3 for quality and limits and -33 health- environmental. The sum of three parameters, based on different parameters, is -8 which is written in Table No 4 as a final grade.
Also. The result are shown in diagrams 1, 2 and 3.
The results concluded from algebraic sum and evaluation of different parameters at Andishe landfill, were 49 for physical, 3 for quality and limits, and 47 for health-environment criterions.
These figures are given in table No.5. The final grade as sum of all above parameters is 99 according to each different parameter.
Table No 4. Evaluation of Rasht and Andishe landfill condition Physical criterion Rasht Andisheh
Distance from urban area 4 4
Distance from rural area 1 4
Distance from residential area 4 4 Distance from offices & governmental Co. 4 3 Distance from river & surface water 2- -1
Distance from sea 4 4
Distance from farms 1 4
Distance from forest -4 4
Distance from recreational area 4 4 Distance from sensitive ecological area 3 4
Distance from main road 1 2
Main road condition 1 1
Sub road condition 2 3
Type of soil at site 3 2
Good soil specification for vegitation -4 2
Wind direction -1 -2
Water level 4 2
Transportation time 2 2
Fault , earthquake -2 -1
Flood band 3 4
Sum 28 49
Health & Environmental parameters Rasht Andisheh Industrial waste deposit at site -4 4 Hospital waste deposit at site -4 -4 Slaughtery waste deposit at site -4 4
Constructional waste deposit -4 4
Waste water and sludge deposit at site -4 4
Surface water pollution -4 2
Ground water pollution -1 4
Sea pollution 4 4
Soil pollution -3 1
Landscape pollution 4 4
Air pollution 2 2
Smell -2 -2
Pollution records & disadvantages rate -3 3 Wildlife and habitant degradation -1 4
Degradation of recreation area 2 4
Vegetation cover degradation -3 4
Animal death 1 4
Indirect degradation & pollution transfer -4 3
Light object scattering 1 1
Optical obstacle 3 -4
Fencing area -4 -4
Wild and domestic animal -4 2
Soil cover - 1 3
Land & properties value decrease 4 4
Manmade green area -4 -4
Sum -32 47
Ability & Limits Rasht Andisheh
Potential future use 3 -4
Development possibilities 4 3
reconstruction, repair and renovation -3 -3
Sufficient space for future 4 4
Adequate landfill in the area -4 4
Residents complains -4 4
Management system cost -2 -4
Installations, facilities at site -1 -1
Sum -3 3
-10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Dista nce from
urb an Dista
nce from rur
al ar ea Dista
nce from
resid ential Dista
nce from
offic es Dista
nce(
river &
surfa ce w
ater) Dista
nce from sea Dista
nce from
farm s Dista
nce from fore
st Dista
nce from recr
eatio nal are
a Dista
nce ( s ensitiv
e ec ologic
al) Dista
nce from
main road Main
road c ondition Sub
roa d con
dition Typ
e of so il at s
ite Goo
d soil s pecific
ation (veg
itatio n) Win
d dire ction Wa
ter le vel Tra
nspo rtatio
n tim e Fau
lt , e arth
quak e Flo
od b and Sum
Physical criterion
value
Rasht Andisheh
Diagram 1: evaluation of physical parameters at Andisheh landfill (2007)
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5
Poten tial futu
re use Developm
ent possib ilities recon
structio n and repair Sufficient space
(future) Adequa
te lan dfill Residen
ts com plains Manag
ement s ystem
cost Installatio
ns, fac ilities Sum
Ability & Limits
value
Rasht Andisheh
Diagram 2. Evaluation of Ability & limits parameters at Andisheh landfill (2007)
-40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Indus tria
l wa ste
dep os
it Ho
sp ital w
aste dep
os it a
t site Slaugh
tery wa
ste depos
it Co
ns tructiona
l wa ste
de po
sit W
aste wa
ter a nd
sludge Su
rface wa
ter po llution Grou
nd wa
ter p ollu
tion Se
a po llutio
n So
il p ollu
tion Land
scape po
llutio n Air po llution
Sm ell
Po llution
reco rds
W ildlife
t deg rada
tion De
grad ation
of rec rea
tion area Ve
ge tatio
n co ve
r de grad
ation An
ima l dea
th Ind
irect p ollu
tion tra
ns fer Lig
ht ob ject s
catte ring Op
tica l ob
sta cle Fen cing
area W
ild a nd
dom es
tic a nim
al So
il cov er
prope rtie
s va lue
de creas
e Manm
ade gre
en area Su
m
Health & Environmental criterion
value
Rasht Andisheh
Diagram 3: evaluation of health –environmental parameters at Andishe landfill (2007)
4. Conclusion:
Identifying incompatible impacts of different parameters in Rasht & Andisheh landfill and consideration of standards in each location will help controlling different types of existing landfill problems. Followings are outcome of each parameter and their sum in both sites accordingly.
4.1. Rasht landfill
Conclusions made by Monavari method 95-2 explains that the lower grade goes to health- environmental criterion and the highest stands for physical, which is 28. According to table number 2 the condition of this landfill is tolerable. Quality & limits and health - environment grades respectively -3 and -33 show the poor condition of the landfill site. The sum of these parameters is equal to -8 which classify the area as an unacceptable group.
4.2. Andisheh landfill:
Results concluded from this method at Andisheh landfill shows that the lower achieved grade goes to quality & limits and the highest goes to physical parameters and that is 40.
This grade according to grading table of the indicator criterion (table 1) has a connivance condition. Grades achieved for quality & limits, health and environment respectively are 3 and 47 and both have ignoring condition according to grading table of indicator criterion. The sum of these three parameters is 99 and that means a medium grade. Thereof Andisheh landfill classified as acceptable group.
Diagram 5-7 show the results of studied parameters conditions
It is concluded from above that, although this site has been classified as acceptable group, not all the studied parameter enjoys a suitable indicator. Comparison between sums of parameters is given in diagram 4.
-40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Physical criterion
Health &
environmental criterion
Ability & Limits Sum
parameters
value
Rasht Andisheh
Diagram 4: Comparison of parameters at Rasht & Andisheh landfill sites 5. Comparison of Rasht & Andisheh landfill sites
Humid areas of the country are more vulnerable and sensitive towards environmental impacts of landfills than dry area, due to their special physical and biological conditions. This special conditions includes high precipitation, several water current, high water level, productivity of farms, forest and wetland existence, water use for agriculture, drinking and Industrial, etc (Monavari 2000).
The fundamental differences between the results obtained, here in this research is because of different environmental conditions in these two locations.
According to mentioned results at Rasht landfill parameter’s condition is as follow:
20/75 % are excellent, 9/43 % are good , 7/55% are medium, 11/32 % are insignificant, 9/43 % are weak, 7/55% are approximately unsuitable, 7/55% are undesirable and finally 26/42% of these parameters are in a very unsuitable condition
While based on the aforementioned results parameter’s condition at Andisheh landfill classified as follow:
45/3% % are excellent, 11/3 % are good , 5/6% are medium, 5/6 % are insignificant, 5/6
% are weak, 1/8% are approximately unsuitable, 4% are undesirable and finally 11/3% of these parameters are in a very unsuitable condition.
Diagram 5 shows the comparison of studied parameters in both sites in percent
the difference between indicators at both landfill lead from the difference grades of each individual parameter. As it went before, the lowest grade is for health – environment criterion at Rasht landfill because of surface water existing around the landfill site, high level of ground water, dense vegetation cover(
woodlands), wildlife habitant because of type of regional ecosystem, domestic animal living at site ( because the landfill site is near rural area) and existence of a SiyahRoud River in downstream which transfer the pollution caused by leaches into Anzali wetland. While none of the above condition exist at Andishe landfill because of its dry climate and physical environment.
With respect to achieved results, weak and power points of both landfillsare summarized as table 5.
Table 5. Weak & power points at Rasht & Andisheh new town landfills 1386
No Rasht landfill NO Andisheh landfill
1 Surface water pollution 1 Lack of future use potential 2 Ground water pollution 2 Light objects scattering at spreading
radius
3 Pollution’s indirect transfer via river 3 Insufficient equipments and facilities
4 Living domestic animals at site -
5 Wildlife habitant degradation -
6 Damages to Farms and gardens -
7 Degradation of aqua & woodlands ecosystems
- 8 Lack of adequate site for future
landfill
-
9 Claiming nearby rural residences -
This comparison shows that there is not enough places in Rasht landfill which are suitable for this purpose because of the woodlands ecosystem. Moreover, surface water polluted by leaches, damages to nearby farms have leaded to frequent claims by rural residence. Meanwhile application of this landfill site can be changed in to park, public recreational place, after termination of it usage as a landfill site. But the same change is not applicable for Andisheh landfill because regional surface water is not easily accessible, and lack of natural landscape, however there will be enough land makes the future landfill possible.
It should be point out that the physical limits at Rasht landfill site are existence of farms, forest and gardens near the landfill site and the regional woodland ecosystem.
Although Andisheh landfill is categorized as acceptable site for its dry climate, not all the studied parameters in this research do not have good indicator such as: lack of Bulldozer and needed equipments at the site, lack of fencing around the landfill site, lack of guard and office stand, lack of Scaling machinery to weight the importing waste, medical and hospital waste deposit to the site, lack of gas and leach control. All these shows that the main problem in Andisheh is because of not considering landfill standards, engineering frameworks and design as well as lack of appropriate waste management and sanitary landfill.
Putting more attention to waste management’s issues will change the weak points to power points
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
excelle nt
good m
ediuminsi gnifica
nt weak ap
proxim ately
unsu itable unde
sirable very
unde sirable Indicators
value
Rasht Andisheh
Diagram 5: Comparing indicators in Rasht & Andisheh , in percent
Resource:
1. Ghafari, Hamed (2001) Hydrological characteristic of artificial coverage for solid waste landfills, Water and Environment magazine.
2. Masoud Monavari (1999) Evaluation of the regulation involved in solid waste landfill site selection in humid area of the country, Doctorine thises, Azad university of science & research, Tehran,
3. Monavari, Masoud and Shariat, Mahmoud (2000) Evaluation of landfill site selection standards In Rasht, Science & Technology magazine.
Tehran
4. Shomal Consulting Engineers (1997) Saravan forest park comprehensive plan,
5.
Yekom consulting engineers (2001) Balakhan Loo impacts assessment.
6. D.Josep Hagerty et al,(1997) Solid Waste Management,Litton Education pub.
7. J,Glynn,Henry(2004), Environmental science and Engineering, prentice-hall of India.
8. Johannesson.L.M and Boyer.G (1999) Observation of Solid Waste Landfils in
Developing Countries:Africa, Asia and Latin America, Urban Development Division, The World Bank.
9. Safari.E and Baronian.C (2004), Modeling temporal Variations in Leachate quality Generated at Kahrizak Landfill.
10. T.Wright,Richard &
G.Nebel,Bernard,(2004) Environmental Science Toward Sustainable Future,prentice-hall of India.
11. www.irimet.com (2005)
