We continue SCS’s Advice from the Field blog series with guidance from an article in MSW Magazine by Daniel R. Cooper, Jason Timmons, and Stephanie Liptak.
The authors of a recent article in MSW Management Magazine present engineering ideas that provide for more efficient construction of a GCCS. Gas system operators will benefit by having fewer pumps to operate and maintain and shallower headers that are more easily accessible. Odor management will be easier along with other benefits.
Read the full article here to learn about the design elements for maximizing long-term benefits, impacting: bottom liners, location of the blower/flare station, leachate risers, extraction well targets, and external header piping.
It is challenging to restore properties with a past, but you can do it on time and on budget if you plan ahead to address contaminated historic fill. Follow these tips and use the brownfield redevelopment checklist to keep your next redevelopment on track.
Design Phase
Consider how contaminated historic fill impacts the following:
Site feature locations – You can reduce or even eliminate landfill disposal costs by carefully selecting locations for your building, underground parking, parking lot, utility, and green space.
Storm water infiltration – Do you know that storm water infiltration devices must be located in areas free of contaminated historic fill? Infiltration devices cannot be located where contaminants of concern (as defined in s. NR 720.03(2)) are present in the soil through which the infiltration will occur.
Subslab vapor mitigation system – Already know you have contaminated historic fill on site? Consider adding a subslab vapor mitigation system to the design of your new building. It is usually much cheaper to install this system in a new building than to retrofit one into an existing building. It can also mitigate radon gas.
Planning & Design
Determine if contamination requires the following plans to manage the construction phase:
Material management plan – It establishes how you will separate excavated contaminated material from material that is not contaminated. It also outlines how you will handle contaminated material, either by disposing of it off site in a landfill or reusing it on site in an approved area such as a paved parking lot. This plan also covers screening, sampling, and testing contaminated materials, if required.
Dewatering plan – If the development requires excavation through contaminated historic fill to depths below groundwater, you will need a dewatering plan to properly manage discharge of the water. You may be able to discharge the water to the storm sewer or the sanitary sewer depending on the type and concentration of contaminants. You must determine local and state permit requirements before implementing your dewatering plan.
Demolition plan – The demolition plan for removing existing structures during redevelopment should include handling, removal, and disposal of potential contaminants such as lead and asbestos. The demolition plan should also address recycling and reuse of existing on site materials like concrete. You may be able to save money by crushing and reusing concrete on site as fill material, or by hauling and crushing it off site to reuse it as fill at another property. This approach can save you considerable money compared to landfill disposal.
Ready to start saving time and money addressing contaminated historic fill at your next redevelopment? Contact Ray Tierney for help evaluating your options in the Upper Midwest, or using the SCS Brownfield Redevelopment Checklist .
Live in another part of the country? SCS Engineers offers brownfields, remediation, due diligence, and all appropriate inquires services nationwide. Contact us today at .
Learn more about these services at SCS Engineers; read our case studies and articles:
Brownfields and Remediation
Due Diligence and All Appropriate Inquiries
Most often, landfill gas system design is added to an existing landfill cell, but the co-authors of this article explain the benefits of considering the LFG system during the landfill bottom liner design process. Doing so during the early stages of the landfill’s life, make it possible to improve collection efficiencies, lower operating costs, and save time in the future.
Continue to the full article, Planning Ahead for the Bottom Liners, published in MSW Magazine’s November 2017 issue and learn about the co-authors from Sarasota County, Florida Public Utilities and SCS Engineers.
How to stay in compliance, do what is right and avoid costly fines and litigation.
The State of California passed regulations in 2015 that impact all craft brewers (SIC Code 2082) who must comply with these regulations by either preparing and implementing a plan or certifying “no exposure” for their facility. While enforcement has so far been limited, the State maintains a searchable database by SIC code, and compliance determinations by government officials, environmental groups and other non-government organizations is comparatively easy.
Based on our research, the current compliance rate for craft brewers in California is relatively low. Those who don’t comply run the risk of fines or citizen suits by non-profits, which can be costly and time-consuming. Find out about the different types of compliance, what is involved, and how to stay in compliance.
A Qualified Industrial Storm Water Practitioner (QISP) can help you answer the following questions:
For more information or help with stormwater compliance in California, contact Dan Johnson at or the California Craft Brewers Association. If you are a CCBA member, you may access slides from a recent Webinar relating to Stormwater Compliance for Craft Brewers here. To sign up for our e-newsletter on stormwater and compliance tips send an email to .
Contact for stormwater compliance services in all 50 states.
Material recovery facilities (MRFs) are seeing many challenges that directly impact operations. Some of these challenges include: new recycled material quality standards from China, the ratcheting up of voluntary and mandatory local and state recycling goals, lower tolerance for worker injury, increasing volumes and a changing waste stream, disposal bans on organics in landfills, and high demand from emerging energy
markets for organics.
MRFs equipped with the latest technologies are able to meet tightening standards for traditional quality recycled materials and some are also starting to provide a separate, clean organics stream for downstream alternative energy projects. Many MRF operators are now benefitting from these new technologies, with increased throughput and quality of end product.
The article by Bruce Clark and Mike Kalish of SCS, provides an overview of the latest developments in MRF processing equipment systems that are helping owners and operators meet these challenges and at the same time helping maintain a healthy bottom line.
Related articles, case studies, and services.
Ryan Joslyn
University of Central Florida, MS
Robert P. Stearns/SCS Engineers Master’s Scholar
Project: Field Investigation of an Elevated Temperature Florida Landfill
For reasons that are not entirely clear, incidents of elevated temperatures in municipal solid waste landfills are occurring at increasing frequency. These landfills present temperatures that well exceed the range tolerable for micro-organisms (~176°F). Given the significance of elevated temperatures at landfills and the growing number of landfills with these issues, the goal of Joslyn’s research is to develop a more complete understanding of elevated temperature landfills using landfill gas and leachate monitoring data, specifically in the state of Florida.
Robert P. Stearns, Chairman and CoFounder of SCS Engineers, joined the EREF Board of Directors in 1999 and served as Chairman from 2004–2005. At SCS, he directed or served in a review capacity on many of the firm’s solid waste management-related projects. In 2007 EREF awarded the first Robert P. Stearns/SCS Engineers Master’s Scholarship, which was established to expand EREF’s successful doctoral-level scholarship program.
Temporary Landfill Caps
Temporarily capping landfill slopes is becoming a common measure for landfill operators. There are many benefits to closing landfill slopes with geomembrane on a temporary basis. One of the benefits is delaying construction of the final cover. Following is a discussion of the steps that should be taken to determine whether temporarily capping the slope with geomembrane and postponing the final cover construction is a better financial/operational decision.
Cost Burden
Constructing the final cover is costly, and it is considered an unavoidable expense that has no return on the money spent. Therefore, some operators perform a financial evaluation to determine whether the final cover construction costs can be delayed (provided, of course, that such delays are acceptable to the regulating agency). When evaluating whether to delay the final cover, the cost of maintaining the slopes during the postponement period should be considered. The operator must look at the financial aspects of either closing the slopes with a temporary geomembrane or of leaving the slopes open during the postponement period.
Temporary Landfill Capping Option
The benefits of temporarily capping the slopes during the postponement period may include:
The other side of the coin is the expense associated with the temporary cap. There may be repair costs associated with the geomembrane every few years in order to ensure that the temporary cap remains intact.
Leaving Slopes Open Option
The option of leaving the slopes open during the postponement period involves maintenance expenses such as:
The benefits of leaving the slopes open are twofold: first, the operator will save the costs of constructing the temporary cap; and second, the operator will gain additional airspace as waste settles during the postponement period.
Experience with the Temporary Capping Option
As discussed above, both options provide the benefit of gaining additional airspace during the postponement period. Constructing a temporary cap involves the costs of materials and installation, including the geomembrane and the ballasting system that keeps the geomembrane in place. Generally, the financial and non-tangible benefits of a temporary cap that remains in place five years or longer are more attractive than leaving the slopes open; therefore, most operators choose to install a temporary cap. The next step in the financial evaluation should be comparing the costs of the temporary cap to permanently closing the slopes without postponement.
Final Step in the Financial Evaluation
The next question is whether it makes financial sense to postpone the construction of the final cover.
Waste settlement during the postponement period and the resulting airspace are considered the determining financial factor in choosing the right option. If the present worth value of the airspace generated from waste settlement during the postponement period is greater than the cost to construct the temporary cap at the present time, then the temporary cap option would make financial sense; otherwise, the final cover should be constructed without postponement.
It should be noted that the length of the postponement period plays a very important role in this financial equation. Longer postponement periods have the potential for a greater gain in airspace. Another incentive that should be factored into the financial evaluation is the potential return on the money set aside for the final cover construction during the postponement period.
To assist with this financial evaluation, landfill operators are encouraged to discuss these options with their landfill engineers. Settlement models can be performed to calculate the amount of airspace that may be generated during the postponement period as well as the present worth value of the generated airspace. The returns on the final cover construction costs during the postponement will just be “icing on the cake.”
Read the related Advice From the Field blogs from the landfill and LFG experts at SCS Engineers:
Contact the author: Ali Khatami or your local SCS Engineers’ office.
Typical Conditions
The organic matter that is placed in landfills goes through a decomposition process that is exothermic and releases heat inside the landfill space. There are also other exothermic processes such as metal corrosion, hydration, carbonation, and acid-base neutralization that contribute to the heat generation phenomenon in landfills. Municipal solid waste has a relatively low heat conductivity characteristic, which means the heat is not as easily conducted through the waste keeping the landfill interior generally warmer than the areas near the landfill exterior.
Landfills expel the heat in different ways; propagating through the waste mass to the air, ground, leachate, and gas heat sinks. The heat escapes the landfill at its boundaries by convection to the air above the landfill surface and by conduction to the ground below the waste. Heat can also escape from landfills through liquids and gases removed from the landfill. For example, by conduction, via leachate that flows through the waste and is removed by leachate sumps and by convection, and via gases generated inside the landfill that are removed through the gas collection system.
Special Conditions
The large majority of landfills in the country show no signs of special conditions indicating too much heat. The characteristics noted in this blog have been observed in a few large, deep, wet landfills. Field investigations at landfills with high temperatures revealed that the highest temperatures are generally located at mid-point to the two-thirds depth of waste from the top surface. Temperatures as high as 250 °F have been recorded by specialized measuring devices.
Under certain conditions, elevated temperatures may occur inside a landfill, and the excess heat changes the character of chemical reactions taking place in the landfill, such as the decomposition process of the organic matter. Other documented changes that may take place in accumulated heat conditions are: leachate becoming stronger with higher BOD, lower pH, higher carboxylic acids and salts; concentrations of certain acids increasing; carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide generation increasing; the ratio of methane to carbon dioxide decreasing; hydrogen generation increasing; landfill odors changing to a significantly pungent character; landfill settlement rates increasing; gas generation and gas pressure increasing; leachate generation increasing; along with other changes.
Research
Heat generation in landfills is studied by researchers, reported in technical literature and scientific papers by academia and the industry. A summary of the findings related to the amount of heat generated from municipal solid waste in landfills is presented in Table 1 of Heat Generation in Municipal Solid Waste Landfills posted on the California Polytechnic State University, Robert E. Kennedy Library website.
Since the issue of high temperatures in landfills is of extreme importance to landfill operators with respect to compliance, operations, and financial aspects of these cases, finding out the cause and sources of excess heat is a hot subject in the field of landfill science. The largest research grant supporting the on-going research in this field was awarded by the Environmental Research & Education Foundation (EREF) in December 2014. So far, three parts of a technical article explaining chemical mechanisms through which organic matter decomposes and generate various types of other chemicals and heat have been published by the researchers of the above grant in Waste360. The research is on-going, and more information will be published in future. Links to the first three parts of the above article are provided here:
Prevention, Diagnosing and Managing ETLFs
SCS was involved in the preparation of standards for large, deep and wet landfills for a major waste operator in 2016. The intent of the standards is to implement measures to prevent elevated temperature conditions in large, deep, and wet landfills. SCS’s experience at such landfills and its in-depth knowledge can be valuable to those waste operators who are either experiencing elevated temperature conditions in their landfills or want to prevent conditions forming in their landfills proactively.
About the Author: Dr. Ali Khatami
Join SCS Engineers at the Global Waste Management Symposium to learn more, or click these links read about our landfill and landfill gas to energy services, clients, and articles.
Contact a professional near you at .
Discovering unexpected pockets of soft soils at the time of construction can delay your project and drive up costs for landfills, support features, and many other types of construction. If you don’t find them, building over them can result in unexpected settlement affecting a structure or building, or cause a slope stability problem for a berm or stockpile. You can avoid both of these scenarios with early investigation and appropriate construction planning.
While landfill development investigations typically require numerous soil borings within the proposed waste limits of the landfill, it’s common to overlook perimeter areas. Pockets of soft soil deposits can be associated with nearby existing wetlands, lakes, or rivers; with wind-blown silt or ancient lake deposits from periods of glaciation; or with fill placed during previous site uses.
The landfill perimeter areas may contain tanks for leachate or fuel, buildings, perimeter berms for screening or landscaping, stockpiles, and other features. A tank or building constructed over soft soils could experience unexpected settlement affecting the performance and value of the structure. The potential for a slope stability problem can increase for a large berm or stockpile built on soft soils.
The first step to avoid these problems and identify problem soils is to include perimeter areas in your subsurface investigation. Perform soil borings or test pit excavations at the locations of the proposed perimeter features such as tanks or berms. If you encounter soft soils, address them like this:
Contact SCS’s geotechnical engineers for more information on how to find and test soft soil areas early in a landfill’s project schedule, so you can effectively address associated construction issues in a way that considers cost and minimizes unexpected project delays.
The Association for the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education (AASHE) has awarded UNH the STARS Platinum rating in recognition of its sustainability achievements. STARS, the Sustainability Tracking, Assessment & Rating System, measures and encourages sustainability in all aspects of higher education. The Platinum STAR is the highest possible rating and held by only a handful of higher education institutions in the world.
Some highlights of UNH’s sustainability achievements:
“UNH committed to use renewable energy and move toward a sustainable energy economy early,” said Steve Hamilton, Sr. Vice President of SCS Engineers – Energy Division. “The decision to convert landfill gases to renewable energy kick-started a very successful program which is paying off for the University and in the surrounding community.”
Benefits include:
Corporate Headquarters
3900 Kilroy Airport Way Suite 300
Long Beach, CA 90806
Telephone
1 (800) 767-4727
1 (562) 427-0805 | FAX
Contact Us
