Results of the Study of Emerging Technologies for MSW Landfills Landfill Compliance Study
description
Transcript of Results of the Study of Emerging Technologies for MSW Landfills Landfill Compliance Study
Results of the Study of Emerging Technologies for MSW Landfills Landfill Compliance Study
presented to
California Integrated Waste Management Boardby
GeoSyntec Consultants, Inc.Walnut Creek ,California
18 November 2003
Presenters / Collaborators
Julie Holmes Ryan, P.E.Project EngineerGeoSyntec Consultants
Michael Minch, P.E., G.E. Senior EngineerGeoSyntec Consultants
Edward Kavazanjian, Ph.D., P.E., G.E. (not present)
Senior ConsultantGeoSyntec Consultants
Task 7 Goals Identify emerging technologies in waste
management to be considered for application in California. (Section 2.1)
Develop a set of topics by which all technologies may be evaluated. (Section 2.2)
Perform extensive review of technologies, using existing documentation as primary resource. (Sections 3 through 6)
Summarize applicability of each technology for application in California. (Sections 3 through 6 and Section 7)
Recommend technologies which are most likely candidates for application in California. (Section 1)
Task 7 GoalsIdentify Emerging Technologies
Pre-Disposal Waste Treatment TechnologiesMechanical Pre-Processing Biological Pre-TreatmentThermal Pre-Treatment
Landfill Design TechnologiesAnaerobic Bioreactor LandfillAerobic / Semi-aerobic LandfillAlternative Base Containment SystemsAlternative Cover Systems
Landfill Remediation TechnologiesLandfill Gas ApplicationsPassive AerationAir InjectionLeachate RecirculationLandfill Mining
Industry Standards, Certifications, and Guidance Documents
Task 7 GoalsTopics for Evaluation of Technologies
General Description
Detailed Description and Process Options
Global Application and Case History
Research Studies
Technologies in Combination
Application in California
Evaluation of Benefits and Barriers
Task 7 SummarySummary of Technologies
Task 7 GoalsEvaluating Applicability to California
Environmental BenefitClimatePopulation DensityCommunity Participation and/or AcceptanceLand-use and AvailabilityMaterial Availability (i.e., construction materials)Waste CompositionCompliance with Existing RegulationsCompatibility with Existing Waste Management Practices
Task 7 SummaryApplication in California
Technology Application in California
Pre-Treatment Technologies
Mechanical Pre-Processing
Separation Currently being implemented at MRFs. Difficulty quantifying cost vs. benefit limits widespread application
Size Reduction/ Shredding
Currently being implemented at MRFs. Difficulty quantifying cost vs. benefit limits widespread application
Washing/ Flushing Difficulty quantifying cost vs. benefit limits widespread application Wastewater stream generally requires processing
Baling Difficulty quantifying cost vs. benefit limits widespread application
Biological Pre-Treatment
Aerobic Applicability based on waste content Greenwaste diversion may impact benefits, potential Difficulty quantifying cost vs. benefits limits widespread application.
Anaerobic Applicability based on waste content Greenwaste diversion may impact benefits, revenue Difficulty quantifying cost vs. benefits limits widespread application.
Thermal Pre-Treatment
Incineration Implemented at several sites in California Cost and revenue dependent on waste composition Air regulations may preclude application Potential for long-term impacts of ash may restrict disposal options
Pyrolysis Unknown cost No record of large-scale application; may limit application
Application in CaliforniaComparison to Cross-Media Inventory A review of the Cross-Media Inventory (Task 2) indicates
the following technologies have been implemented or proposed at landfill sites in California.
Mechanical Pre-Processing: 5 landfillsBiological Pre-Treatment: 3 landfillsAnaerobic Bioreactor: 3 landfillsAlternative Base Containment System: 3 double liner systems, 1 white linerAlternative Cover System: 1 exposed geomembrane cover systemLandfill Gas Applications: 20 landfill gas-to-electricity systems, 4 landfill gas-to-medium BTU fuel systems, 3 landfill gas-to-electricity systems.Leachate Recirculation: 3 landfillsLandfill Mining: 1 landfill
Mechanical Pre-ProcessingAnaerobic Bioreactor LandfillsAlternative Base Containment Systems (especially electrically conductive geomembranes and encapsulated GCLs)Alternative Cover Systems (especially non-barrier cover systems)Landfill Gas Applications (especially for medium BTU applications)Leachate RecirculationIndustry Standards, Certification and Guidance Documents
The following technologies are recognized to have considerable potential for successful implementation in California
Application in CaliforniaMost Likely Technologies for Application
Application in CaliforniaMechanical Pre-Processing
Combination of separation and shredding
Cost Effective
Increases compaction and reduces volume of landfilled material
Accelerates waste stabilization
Application in CaliforniaAnaerobic Bioreactor Landfill
Most applicable in less arid areas
New cell designed to recirculate leachate and collect gas during filling
Enhanced waste stabilization
Generates additional airspace
Application in CaliforniaAlternative Base Containment Systems
Electrically conductive geomembrane: cost effective
increased liner reliability
Encapsulated GCL: increased shear strength of GCL system
most applicable to canyon applications
Non-barrier covers:developed for arid climates
equivalent or superior infiltration control
enhanced waste stabilization
Delayed closure: applicable in arid climates where stabilization is ongoing after disposal
Application in CaliforniaAlternative Cover Systems
Application in CaliforniaLandfill Gas Applications
LFG-to-Medium BTU fuel: minimal processing required
comparatively low capital cost
economic incentives
Application in CaliforniaLeachate Recirculation
Improved leachate quality
Enhanced waste stabilization
Requires appropriate LCRS to control head on the liner system
Application in CaliforniaIndustry Standards, Certification and Guidance Documents
Standards and Certifications:may simplify regulatory compliance and oversight
Guidance Documents:methods recommended, not required
provides owners with framework for design
assists regulators in ensuring quality
provides consistency in methods
QUESTIONS